A 


I  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY, 
t  Princeton,  N.  J.  ^SSjSf 


^ 


**•  ^-^^a  S<^^>9  S-r'^^ - 


Division 


I        Case, 

©         Shelf,  Seci 

*'        Booky  Mo 


BX  8955  .W66  18A5 
Wood,  James,  1799-1867 
Old  and  new  theology 


OLD  AND  NEW  THEOLOGY 


BY 

/ 

JAMES^  WOOD,  D.D 


ALSO 


A  REVIEW 


OF 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT 


FROM  THE 


BIBLICAL    REPERTORY 


PHILADELPHIA: 

PRESBYTERIAN  BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION. 

1845. 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year 
1845,  by  A.  W.  Mitchell,  M.  D.,  in  the  office  of  the 
Clerk  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Eastern  District  of 
Pennsylvania. 


OLD  AND  NEW  THEOLOGY, 

OR   AN   EXHIBITION   OF 
THOSE    DIFFERENCES    WITH    REGARD    TO 

SCRIPTURE    DOCTRINES, 

WHICH  HAVE  RECENTLY  AGITATED  AND  NOW  DIVIDED 

THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH. 


No  man  having  drunk  old  wine,  straightway  desireth  new;  for  he 
saith,  the  old  is  better.— Ldke  v.  39. 


SECOND    EDITION. 


Bt   JAMES  WOOD,   D.  D. 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 
Introduction 9 


CHAPTER  I. 

The  character  and  government  of  God 25 

CHAPTER  II. 

God's  covenant  with  Adam  and  our  relation  to  him 
as  our  federal  head — involving  the  doctrine  of  im- 
putation and  original  sin 42 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  subject  of  the  preceding  chapter  continued — ex- 
hibiting the  New  Theology  concerning  God's  cove- 
nant with  Adam  as  the  federal  head  of  his  posterity, 
imputation,  original  sin,  &c 57 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Remarks  on  imputation,  original  sin,  &c.  with  refer- 
ence to  the  views  presented  in  the  preceding 
chapter 74 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  sufferings  of  Christ  and  our  justificatiou  through 
him 93 


8  ^CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Justification — a  continuation  of  the  preceding  chapter.  133 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Human  ability,  regeneration,  and  the  influences  of 
the  Holy  Spirit 157 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Human  ability,  regeneration,  &c.  continued  from  the 
preceding  chapter 181 

CHAPTER  IX. 

A  contrast  between  the  Old  and  New  Theology,  by 
way  of  review,  and  a  notice  of  the  Perfectionism  of 
Mr.  Finney 202 

Conclusion 227 


PREFACE 

TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION  IN  1838. 


In  numerous  instances  during  the  past  year, 
the  question  has  been  proposed  to  me,  "What 
is  the  difference  between  the  doctrinal  views 
of  the  Old  and  New  School  ?  Though  seve- 
ral books  and  pamphlets  have  been  written 
on  a  number  of  these  points,  and  though  most 
if  not  all  of  them  have  been  discussed  at  va- 
rious times  in  our  periodicals,  there  are  many 
in  our  churches  who  are  not  sufficiently  in- 
formed on  the  subject,  particularly  in  those 
sections  where  the  new  doctrines  have  not  be- 
come prevalent,  and  where  but  few  publica- 
tions on  the  points  at  issue  have  been  circu- 
lated. Recent  occurrences  render  it  peculiar- 
ly important  that  all  in  our  connexion  should 
fully  understand  the  merits  of  the  question. 
1 


10  PREFACE. 

It  has  now  become  a  practical  one.  A  de- 
cision is  now  being  made  whether  we  will 
continue  with  the  church  of  our  former  choice, 
or  unite  with  those  who,  without  changing 
their  name,  have  organized  a  new  body. 
With  a  view  of  giving  information  to  such  as 
desire  to  ascertain  on  which  side  the  truth 
Hes,  v/e  shall  present,  in  as  concise  a  manner 
as  the  case  will  admit,  the  distinguishing  fea- 
tures of  the  New  Theology — comparing  them, 
as  we  proceed,  with  those  doctrines  which 
have,  by  way  of  contrast,  been  denominated 
old.  For  the  sentiments  of  the  Old  School  we 
shall  refer  to  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the 
Presbyterian  church  and  to  standard  Calvin- 
istic  writers.  We  think  this  cannot  be  rea- 
sonably objected  to,  even  by  our  New  School 
brethren ;  since  they  have  never  charged  the 
former  with  departing  from  the  Confession  of 
Faith.  For  the  New  School  doctrines,  we 
shall  make  quotations  from  the  professors  at 
New  Haven,  Mr.  Finney,  and  various  minis- 
ters in  the  Presbyterian  church.  We  quote 
from  those  first  named,  because  Dr.  Taylor 
and  his  associates,  though  belonging  to  an- 
other denomination,  are  regarded  as  the  rtio- 
dern  authors  of  these  speculations  j  and  Mr. 


PREFACE.  11 

Finney,  until  within  a  few  years  past,  belong- 
ed to  our  body,  and  preached  and  published 
most  of  his  sentiments  on  these  subjects  be- 
fore he  left  the  church. 

Some  of  the  new  doctrines  began  to  be 
broached  at  New  Haven  in  1821-22,  which 
created  much  dissatisfaction  in  the  minds  of  a 
number  who  were  made  acquainted  with  the 
fact.  In  1826  Professor  Fitch  published  his 
Discourses  on  the  Nature  of  Sin,  and  this  was 
followed  by  a  series  of  communications  in  the. 
Christian  Spectator,  on  the  Means  of  Regene- 
ration. The  former  were  reviewed  by  Dr. 
Green  in  the  Christian  Advocate,  and  the  lat- 
ter called  forth  a  controversy  between  Dr. 
Taylor  and  Dr.  Tyler.  In  1828  Dr.  Taylor 
delivered  his  Concio  ad  Clerum,  which  was 
the  cause  of  Dr.  Woods  writing  his  Letters 
addressed  to  Dr.  Taylor ;  and  the  whole  series 
taken  together  drew  from  Dr.  Griffin  his  Trea- 
tise on  Divine  Efficiency,  and  led  to  the  esta- 
blishment of  the  East  Windsor  Theological 
Seminary. 

Mr.  Finney,  who  was  hopefully  converted 
and  licensed  to  preach  a  few  years  previous, 
became  celebrated  as  an  evangelist  in  West- 
ern New-York,  in  1825-26.     Though  distin- 


12  PREFACE. 

guished  at  first  rather  by  "  new  measures" 
than  by  new  doctrines,  he  soon  adopted  the 
views  of  Dr.  Taylor ;  and  he  has  probably 
done  more  to  give  them  currency  in  certain 
sections  of  the  church  than  any  other  indivi- 
dual. On  some  points  he  has  gone  further 
than  his  archetype ;  and  on  all  perhaps  has 
expressed  himself  with  more  frankness  and 
less  caution— asserting  in  positive  terms  what 
the  former  taught  only  by  affirming,  that  the 
contrary  could  not  be  proved.  His  lectures 
and  sermons  were  the  subject  of  animadver- 
sion in  several  periodicals ;  and  as  I  happen 
to  know,  a  certain  minister  seriously  urged 
one  of  his  (Mr.  Finney's)  co-presbyters  to 
commence  process  against  him ;  but  nothing 
of  this  kind,  I  believe,  was  ever  attempted. 

In  1829  Mr.  Barnes  preached  and  published 
his  sermon  on  the  Way  of  Salvation ;  which 
disclosed  the  fact  that  on  a  number  of  points 
he  agreed  substantially  with  the  new  system ; 
and  upon  his  being  called,  some  months  after- 
wards, to  a  pastoral  charge  in  Philadelphia, 
some  of  the  members  of  the  Philadelphia 
Presbytery  objected  to  receiving  and  instal- 
ling him,  on  the  ground  that  his  sermon, 
which  had  been  extensively  circulated  in  that 


PREFACE.  13 

city,  contained  important  errors  in  doctrine. 
The  action  of  the  Presbytery,  Synod  and  Ge- 
neral Assembly,  in  1830-31,  the  publication 
of  his  Notes  on  the  Romans  in  1835,  and 
the  charges  and  trials  for  heresy  during  that 
and  the  following  year,  are  too  familiar  to  all 
connected  with  our  church,  to  need  any  par- 
ticular notice.  The  preceding  statements  have 
been  made  merely  to  show  the  coincidence 
between  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  new 
divinity  in  New  England  and  its  commence- 
ment and  extension  in  the  Presbyterian 
church. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  controversy  in  the 
Presbyterian  church  does  not  respect  doctrines 
at  all,  except  as  a  secondary  thing.  Some 
have  told  us  it  is  a  strife  for  power — others  a 
contest  for  the  purse — and  others  a  thrust  at 
Congregationalism,  and  through  that  at  New 
England.  With  whatever  view  these  allega- 
tions have  been  made,  the  effect  of  them  has 
been  to  produce  distrust  and  disunion  in  many 
cases  where  there  would  otherwise  have  been 
a  hearty  concurrence  in  most  if  not  all  of  the 
measures  adopted  for  the  reform  of  the  church. 
This  has  been  particularly  the  case  with  some 
whose  partialities  are  strong  in  favour  of 


14  PREFACE. 

New  England.  It  would  seem  that  such 
had  forgotten  for  the  time,  that  in  New  Eng- 
land the  same  controversy  is  going  on  which 
has  agitated  and  ruptured  the  Presbyterian, 
church.  If  it  is  a  war  against  New  England, 
how  does  it  happen  that  many  of  their  ablest 
theologians  have  taken  sides  with  the  assail- 
ants? nay,  that  they  were  the  first  in  raising 
the  note  of  alarm?  The  language  of  Dr. 
Green,  in  1831,  undoubtedly  expresses  the 
feehngs  of  a  large  majority,  if  not  of  all 
the  ministers  in  the  Presbyterian  church. 
"What!"  we  have  heard  it  said,  even  by 
some  who  love  us,  "What!  are  you  arraying 
yourselves  against  the  whole  Theology  of 
New  England?'^  No — we  have  answered 
privately,  and  now  answer  publicly.  No — 
we  are  arraying  ourselves  against  Taylorism 
andFitchism,  and  Murdochism,and  Emmons- 
ism,  and  self-conversionism.  But  we  thank 
God,  this  is  not  "  the  whole  theology  of  New 
England,"  and  we  hope  and  believe  it  never 
will  be.  We  know  that  there  is  a  host  of 
men,  sound  in  the  faith,  who  dislike  and  op- 
pose most  decisively,  this  whole  mass  of  error ; 
and  we  hail  these  men,  and  love  them  as  fel- 


PREFACE.  15 

low  labourers  in  the  cause  of  truth,  and  bid 
them  God  speed  with  all  our  hearts. 

Though  in  the  progress  of  the  difficulties 
some  prominence  has  been  given  of  late  to 
Congregationalism,  it  was  only  from  the  cir- 
cumstance that  this  was  believed  to  have  an 
important  connexion  with  the  main  question 
at  issue.  It  is  not  the  Congregationalism  of 
New  England,  that  was  the  subject  of  discus- 
sion, but  Congregationalism  in  the  Presbyte- 
rian church.  Against  Congregationalism,  as 
such,  there  exists  no  hostility;  but  when, 
through  the  Plan  of  Union,  it  became  the 
means,  like  the  Trojan  horse,  of  introducing 
into  our  body  many  who  were  unfriendly  to 
our  doctrines  and  government,  it  became  ne- 
cessary, in  self-defence,  to  free  the  church 
from  this  improper,  and  to  us,  ruinous  con- 
dition.* 

*  According-  to  the  statement  published  by  me,  as  cor- 
rected in  the  second  edition,  there  are  in  the  four  disown- 
ed  Synods  three  hundred  and  thirty-four  churches  nomi- 
nally  Presbyterian,  and  two  hundred  and  eighty-six  Con- 
gregational. A  short  time  ago,  a  minister  who  was  then 
a  member  of  the  Otsego  Presbytery,  observed  to  me,  If 
you  have  reported  as  favourably  concerning  all  the  Pres- 
byteries  as  you  have  concerning  ours,  they  have  no  reason 


16  PREFACE. 

The  same  remarks  are  applicable  to  the 
resolutions  of  the  General  Assembly  concern- 
ing certain  benevolent  societies.  Towards 
the  American  Home  Missionary  Society  and 
the  American  Education  Society,  in  their  in- 
cipient stages,  and  considered  merely  as  or- 
ganizations for  doing  good,  there  was  for  a 
number  of  years  the  greatest  cordiality.  This 
is  evident  from  the  fact  that  they  were  re- 
peatedly recommended  by  the  General  As- 
sembly. But  when  it  was  found  that  their 
operations  within  our  bounds,  besides  niter- 
fering  with  the  free  action  of  our  own  Boards, 
were  made  the  instruments  in  the  hands  of 
those  who  managed  the  various  Presbyterian 
auxiliaries,  of  increasing  and  extending  our 
difficulties,  and  rendering  them  more  unman- 
ageable— the  one  by  furnishing  young  men 
for  our  pulpits  whose  sentiments  did  not  ac- 
cord with  our  Standards,  and  the  other  by 
directing  and  sustaining  them  in  their  fields 
of  labour — the  Assembly. of  1837  withdrew 

to  complain.  Instead  of  there  being  eight  Presbyterian 
and  eight  Congregational  churches  as  reported  by  me, 
there  are,  he  said,  but  six  Presbyterian  churches  and  ten 
Congregational. 


PREFACE.  17 

their  former  recommendations  and  requested 
them  to  cease  operating  in  our  churches.  As 
in  their  action  concerning  the  Plan  of  Union 
and  the  four  Synods,  so  in  regard  to  these 
societies,  the  ground  of  their  proceedings 
was,  that  they  beUeved  them  to  be  (to  use 
their  own  language)  "exceedingly  injurious 
to  the  peace  and  purity  of  the  Presbyterian 
church'' — and  while  they  "hoped  and  be- 
lieved that  the  Assembly  would  not  be  behind 
the  protesters,  [the  patrons  of  those  societies] 
in  zeal  for  the  spread  of  divine  truth,  they 
desire  that  in  carrying  on  those  great  enter- 
prises, the  church  may  not  be  misled  to  adopt 
a  system  of  action  which  may  be  perverted 
to  the  spread  of  error." 

It  is  not  true,  therefore,  that  the  controver- 
sy has  little  or  no  respect  to  doctrines.  On 
the  contrary,  the  principal  and  primary 
ground  of  it,  has  been  a  discrepancy  in 
doctrinal  sentiments.  Its  origin  may  be 
traced  to  the  opinion  so  prevalent  of  late, 
among  certain  classes  of  men,  that  we  ought 
to  expect  as  great  improvements  in  theology 
as  have  been  made  in  the  arts  and  sciences 
— that  those  formularies  of  Christian  faith, 
which  have  been  received  for  centuries  as 


18  PREFACE. 

containing  a  correct  statement  of  Scripture 
doctrine,  are  too  antiquated  for  this  enlighten- 
ed age ;  and  if  received  now,  are  to  be  ex- 
plained agreeably  to  certain  philosophical 
principles  which  were  unknown  in  the  days 
of  our  ancestors — and  that  the  Bible  itself 
is  to  be  so  expounded  as  to  accord  with  those 
theories  of  mind,  of  free  agency,  and  of  moral 
government,  which  have  been  introduced  by 
the  new  philosophy.  It  is  this  which  gives 
to  their  theology  the  denomination  of  new. 
Considered  chronologically,  it  is  far  from  be- 
ing new.  Similar  sentiments  were  advanced 
on  most  of  the  points  in  dispute,  as  long  ago 
as  the  time  of  Pelagius,  and  they  have  sprung 
up  and  flourished  for  a  while  at  different  pe- 
riods since.  Were  this  the  proper  place,  we 
could  easily  substantiate  this  remark  by  a  re- 
ference to  documents. 

The  principles  upon  which  these  modern 
improvements  in  theology  profess  to  be 
based,  appear  to  me  to  be  radically  erroneous. 
If  the  doctrines  of  religion  were  as  difficult 
to  be  discovered  by  a  diligent  reader  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures,  as  the  laws  and  motions  of 
the  heavenly  bodies  are  to  an  observer  of  the 
planetS;  the  march  of  mind  might  be  expect- 


PREFACE.  19 

ed  to  be  as  visible  in  the  development  of 
new  theological  truths,  as  in  the  new  disco- 
veries of  astronomy.  But  the  Bible,  I  have 
always  supposed,  has  recorded  truth  in  order 
to  reveal  it;  and  not  to  place  it  so  far  beyond 
the  reach  of  common  observation,  as  to  re- 
quire the  aid  of  a  telescope  to  enable  us  to 
discern  its  character  and  proportion.  Truth 
is  immutable.  The  Bible  is,  therefore,  not 
to  be  interpreted  by  a  set  of  philosophical 
dogmas,  which  vary,  it  may  be,  with  every 
successive  age :  but  by  a  careful  examination 
and  comparison  of  its  several  words  and 
phrases.  These  obvious  way-marks  were  the 
same  in  the  time  of  Augustine  and  Calvin, 
and  the  Westminster  divines,  as  they  are 
now;  and  it  is  by  a  faithful  adherence  to 
these,  that  so  much  uniformity  has  been  pre- 
served among  Christians  of  every  age,  in  re- 
gard to  the  doctrines  of  our  holy  religion. 
Abstruse  metaphysical  speculations  have  now 
and  then  held  out  their  false  lights,  and  led 
portions  of  the  church  into  error;  but  when- 
ever the  pride  of  intellect  and  learning  has 
been  humbled  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  there 
has  been  a  return  to  that  simple  hearted  piety, 
which  is  willing  to  receive  the  plain  teachings 


20  PREFACE. 

of  the  Bible,  without  stopping  to  inquire 
whether  they  are  consistent  with  certain  new 
modes  of  philosophizing,  it  has  uniformly  re- 
sulted in  the  revival  of  those  old  and  vener- 
able doctrines,  which  have  been  the  stability 
and  glory  of  the  church  in  every  period  of 
her  history. 

We  do  not  intend  to  convey  the  idea,  that 
all  who  are  now  denominated  New  School, 
or  who  have  united  in  organizing  the  new 
Assembly,  embrace  the  new  doctrines.  Va- 
rious reasons  have  operated  to  produce  in 
the  minds  of  some,  so  much  sympathy  for 
those  who  maintain  these  sentiments,  that 
they  have  taken  sides  with  them,  and  hence 
have  received  their  name,  though  they  dis- 
claim all  affinity  for  their  peculiar  views. 
Others  receive  the  new  divinity  in  a  modified 
form;  and  a  third  class  adopt  some  of  its 
dogmas,  while  they  reject  others.  These  last 
remarks  apply  to  some  of  those  from  whose 
productions  we  design  to  make  extracts  in  the 
following  pages. 

How  large  a  proportion  of  the  new  Assem- 
bly embrace  the  New  Theology,  we  will  not 
undertake  to  say.  We  might  state  a  number 
of  facts,  which  appear  to  show  that  it  is 


PREFACE,  21 

adopted,  at  least  "/or  substance  of  doc- 
trine,^^  by  a  very  considerable  majority.  On 
the  contrary,  there  are  some  who  have  ex- 
pressed opposition  to  these  doctrines,  but  who 
have  been  influenced,  it  is  probable,  by  their 
local  situation,  or  their  connexions  and  sym- 
pathies, to  join  the  new  body.  Our  earnest 
wish  is,  that  they  may  exert  a  happy  influ- 
ence. We  have  no  malignant  feelings  to 
gratify — but  shall  rejoice  to  know  that  every 
error  has  been  corrected,  every  ground  of 
complaint  removed,  and  that  as  a  body,  they 
may  regain  that  Christian  confidence,  to 
which  a  few  of  their  number  are  now  so 
justly  entitled.  It  is  to  be  deeply  regretted, 
that  in  one  or  two  things,  they  would  not 
pursue  a  difl"erent  course.  Twelve  months 
ago  a  committee,  appointed  by  that  party, 
consented  to  take  another  name,  and  to  leave 
their  brethren  of  the  Old  School  in  the  quiet 
possession  of  their  records,  board  of  .trustees, 
and  certain  invested  funds.  An  amicable 
division  would  doubtless  have  taken  place  at 
that  time,  had  it  not  been  for  the  fact  that 
the  committee  from  the  New  School  party 
though  they  consented  to  the  above  reason- 
able terms,  insisted  upon  such  other  condi- 


22  PREFACE. 

tions  as  could  not  be  acceded  to  without 
jeoparding  those  very  interests  for  the  secur- 
ing of  which  a  division  had  become  neces- 
sary. Hence  the  negotiation  failed.  But 
now  they  claim  to  be  the  true  General  As- 
sembly of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  have 
appealed  to  the  civil  courts  to  wrest,  if  possi- 
ble, from  the  hands  of  their  brethren,  what, 
they  virtually  acknowledged  a  year  ago,  does 
not  belong  in  equity  to  themselves,  but  to 
those  whom  they  have  thus  assailed.  Such 
a  procedure  seems  to  us  grossly  improper,  as 
well  as  inconsistent.  It  is  to  be  hoped,  how- 
ever, that  on  further  reflection,  they  will  be 
induced  to  retrace  their  steps  and  pursue  a 
course  more  agreeble  to  their  former  profes- 
sions and  to  the  spirit  of  the  gospel. 

But  Avhile  we  do  not  doubt  that  these  suits, 
if  prosecuted,  will  be  decided  in  favour  of 
the  defendants,  provided  law  and  justice  do 
not  conflict  with  each  other,  we  wish  to  re- 
mind the  reader  that  the  question,  which  body 
is  the  true  General  Jissemhly,  does  not  de- 
pend upon  any  decision  which  is  to  be  made 
by  the  civil  courts.  They  can  decide  who 
shall  have  the  funds;  but  beyond  this  their 
jurisdiction  does  not  extend.    The  General 


PREFACE.  23 

Assembly  was  organized  ten  years  before 
they  had  a  board  of  trustees ;  and  their  organi- 
zation was  as  complete  during  that  time  as  it 
was  afterwards.  It  had  then  its  constitution 
— and  this  constitution,  be  it  remembered, 
makes  the  General  Assembly,  and  not  a  civil, 
court,  the  body  of  final  resort  in  all  cases  of 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.  This  board  of 
trustees  was  incorporated  for  the  purpose  of 
managing  certain  funds  in  behalf  of  the  As- 
sembly, and  for  nothing  else.  If  their  char- 
ter had  been  a  limited  one,  its  expiration 
would  not  have  affected  the  character  of  the 
General  Assembly ;  and  if  it  shall  be  taken 
away,  the  only  result  which  can  follow,  will 
be  to  deprive  them  of  their  funds ;  but  as  an 
ecclesiastical  body,  they  remain  unimpaired. 
If  they  were  the  true  General  Assembly  in 
1789,  and  for  the  ten  following  years  before 
their  charter  was  obtained,  they  are  the  true 
General  Assembly  now,  whatever  becomes 
of  their  property. 

Though  we  shall  be  gratified  to  have  them 
succeed  in  this  respect,  we  regard  the  result 
of  these  suits  as  of  little  importance  compared 
with  other  matters  which  have  been  involved 
in  the  controversy;  but  which  we  trust  are 


24  PREFACE. 

now  finally  settled.  In  regard  to  the  ques- 
tion of  property,  we  feel  very  much  like  a 
native  Christian  of  the  South  Sea  Islands 
who  had  lost  his  house  by  fire,  and  who  in 
the  act  of  rushing  into  the  flames  to  secure  a 
copy  of  the  New  Testament,  was  severely 
scorched  by  the  conflagration.  As  the  mis- 
sionaries were  condoling  Avith  him  on  the 
loss  of  his  house,  he  put  his  hand  under  his 
garment,  and  taking  out  the  sacred  treasure 
which  he  had  saved,  exclaimed  with  extacy, 
"  True,  I  have  lost  my  property,  but  I  have 
saved  my  gospels!"  We  may  lose  our  pro- 
perty before  the  civil  tribunals;  but  if  we 
have  saved  our  "  gospels,"  we  shall  be  infi- 
nite gainers,  and  ought  therefore  to  "take 
joyfully  the  spoiling  of  our  goods."  These 
remarks  are  made  in  view  of  the  prominence 
given  in  the  New  School  prints  to  a  judicial 
decision:  but  we  are  far  from  believing  that 
any  professional  ingenuity  or  legal  skill  will 
be  able  to  procure  such -a  result  as  they  an- 
ticipate ;  even  should  they  venture  to  bring 
the  question  to  trial. 


OLD  AND  NEW  THEOLOGY. 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE  CHARACTER  AND  GOVERNMENT  OF  GOD. 

In  New  England,  the  controversy  on  the 
subject  of  the  present  chapter  embraces  some 
propositions  which  have  never  been  much 
discussed  in  the  Presbyterian  church;  and 
concerning  which  the  great  majority  of  our 
ministers,  we  beUeve,  have  not  expressed  a 
decided  opinion.  We  refer  to  the  following, 
which  we  give  in  the  language  of  Dr.  Tyler : 
"  Dr.  Taylor  maintains,  contrary  to  my  belief, 
that  the  existence  of  sin  is  not,  on  the  whole, 
for  the  best ;  and  that  a  greater  amount  of 
good  would  have  been  secured  had  all  God's 
creatures  remained  holy,  than  will  result  from 
the  present  system."  Again  :  "  Dr.  Taylor 
maintains,  contrary  to  my  belief,  that  God, 
all  things  considered,  prefers  holiness  to  sin, 
in  all  instances  in  which  the  latter  takes 
place."  It  has  been  a  common  sentiment 
among  New  England  divines,  since  the  time 
3 


26  THEORY    OF    LEIBNITZ, 

of  Edwards,  "  that  sin  is  the  necessary  means 
of  the  greatest  good,  and  as  such,  so  far  as  it 
exists,  is  preferable,  on  the  whole,  to  holiness 
in  its  stead."  The  sentiment  is  founded  upon 
what  has  been  denominated  the  Beltistian 
Theory;  which,  it  is  said,  was  first  taught  by 
Leibnitz,  about  the  commencement  of  the 
last  century.  This  theory  maintains,  that 
"  of  all  possible  systems,  God,  infinitely  wise 
and  good,  must  adapt  that  which  is  best. 
The  present  system,  therefore,  is  preferable 
to  every  other;  and  since  sin  is  a  part  of  the 
system,  "its  existence  is,  on  the  whole,  for 
the  best."  Not  that  "sin  must  be  good  in 
itself ^^^  as  Dr.  Taylor  disingenuously  insinu- 
ates that  they  hold — this  is  no  part  of  their 
belief — but  that  God  will  so  overrule  it,  for 
the  promotion  of  his  glory  and  the  happiness 
of  the  universe,  "  that  a  greater  amount  of 
good  will  result  from  the  present  system,  than 
would  have  been  secured  had  all  God's  crea- 
tures remained  holy."^  Concerning  the  prin- 
ciple of  Leibnitz,  from  which  these  conclu- 
sions are  drawn.  Dr.  Witherspoon  remarks: 
"  This  scheme  seems  to  me  to  labour  under 
two  great  and  obvious  ditficulties — that  the 
infinite  God  should  set  hmits  to  himself,  by  the 
production  of  a  created  system — it  brings  cre- 
ation a  2:reat  deal  too  near  the  Creator  to  sav 


*  New  England  optimism,  as  it  is  sometimes  denomi- 
nated,  arises  from  the  theory  that  virtue  consists  in  bene- 
volence— or  that  the  tendency  of  holiness  to  produce  hap- 
piness, is  that  which  gives  it  its  chief,  if  not  its  only  ex- 
cellence. 


REMARKS    OF    DR.  WITIIERSrOON.  2i 

it  is  the  alternative  of  Omnipotence.  The 
other  difficulty  is,  that  it  seems  to  make  some- 
thing which  I  do  not  know  how  to  express 
otherwise  than  by  the  ancient  stoical  fate, 
antecedent  and  superior  even  to  God  himself. 
I  would  therefore  think  it  best  to  say,  with 
the  current  of  orthodox  divines,  that  God  was 
perfectly  free  in  his  purpose  and  providence, 
and  that  there  is  no  reason  to  be  sought  for 
the  one  or  the  other  beyond  himself." 

Admitting  then,  that  there  was  no  necessity 
on  the  part  of  the  Creator  to  form  one  parti- 
cular system  rather  than  another,  it  becomes 
merely  a  question  of  fact,  whether  more  good 
will  result  to  the  universe  from  the  existence 
of  sin,  all  things  considered,  than  would  have 
been  secured  if  sin  had  never  been  permitted  ? 
To  this  question,  most  of  the  ministers  in  our 
church,  we  are  disposed  to  think,  would  reply 
by  saying,  "We  cannot  tell."  All  agree  that 
"  the  existence  of  sin  under  the  divine  govern- 
ment is  a  profound  mystery ;"  and  also  that 
he  will  make  use  of  it  to  display  some  of  his 
illustrious  perfections;  and  to  communicate 
to  his  creatures  rich  and  eternal  blessings. 
But  whether  he  might  not  have  formed 
a  system,  if  it  had  been  his  pleasure,  by 
which  his  glory  would  have  been  still  more 
displayed,  and  a  still  greater  amount  of  hap- 
piness secured  to  his  creatures,  it  is  not  our 
province  to  decide.  As  he  has  no  where  told 
us  that  he  has  made  the  best  sysiem  2J0ssible, 
and  as  we  cannot  perceive  that  his  infinite 
goodness  required  him  to  do  it,  we  are  dis- 


28  auoTATio^'s  FRo:\r  dr.  taylor. 

posed  to  leave  the  question  to  be  contempla- 
ted and  solved,  (if  a  solution  be  desirable,) 
when  we  shall  have  the  advantage  of  that  ex- 
pansion of  mind,  that  increase  of  knowledge, 
and  that  interchange  of  sentiment  with  other 
created  beings,  which  we  shall  enjoy  in  the 
heavenly  world. 

But  while  in  regard  to  these  propositions 
we  express  no  opinion,  we  consider  the  rea- 
soning of  Dr.  Taylor  in  attempting  to  refute 
them  as  involving  pernicious  errors.  It  is 
on  this  account  that  we  have  introduced  the 
subject  in  the  present  volume.  Pressed  with 
the  difficulty  that  if  sin  under  the  divine  go- 
vernment will  not  on  the  whole  be  for  the 
best,  why  did  God  permit  it?  he  has  taken 
the  bold,  not  to  say  the  impious  ground,  that 
God  did  all  he  could  to  prevent  the  existence 
of  sin,  but  could  not,  without  infringing  on 
the  moral  agency  of  man — and  that  he  would 
make  the  world  holier  and  happier  now  if  he 
could,  without  abridging  human  liberty. 

His  language  on  this  subject  is  as  follows: 
"  It  will  not  be  denied  that  free  moral  agents 
can  do  wrong  under  every  possible  influence 
to  prevent  it.  The  possihility  of  a  contra- 
diction in  supposing  them  to  be  prevented 
from  doing  wrong,  is  therefore  demonstrably 
certain.  Free  moral  agents  can  do  wrong 
under  all  possible  preventing  influence." — 
Christian  Spectator,  Sept.  1830,  p.  bQi2,J^ 

*  As  I  have  not  all  the  numbers  of  the  Christian  Specta- 
tor in  my  possession,  I  shall,  in  my  quotations  from  that 
work,  make  free  use  of  a  pamphlet  written  by  the  Rev. 
Daniel  Dow. 


QUOTATIO^'S    FROM    DR.    TAYLOR.  29 

"  But  in  our  view  it  is  a  question  whether 
it  is  not  essential  to  the  honour  of  God  to 
suppose  that  he  has  done  all  he  could  to 
secure  the  universal  holiness  of  his  account- 
able creatures;  and  that  nevertheless^  some, 
in  defiance  of  it,  .would  rebel.  Such  a  propo- 
sition we  think  neither  violates  the  feelings 
of  enlightened  piety,  nor  the  decision  of  reve- 
lation.''— Christian  Spectator,  1832,  p.  567. 

"God  not  only  prefers  on  the  whole  that 
his  creatures  should  for  ever  perform  their 
duties  rather  than  neglect  them,  but  purposes 
on  his  part  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  promote 
this  object  in  his  kingdom." — Christian  Spec- 
tator, 1S32,  p.  660. 

"  It  is  a  groundless  assumption,  that  God 
could  have  prevented  all  sin,  or  at  least,  the 
present  degree  of  sin  in  a  moral  system.  If 
holiness  in  a  moral  system  be  preferable  to 
sin  in  its  stead,  why  did  not  a  benevolent 
God,  were  it  possible  to  him,  prevent  all  sin, 
and  secure  the  prevalence  of  universal  holi- 
ness? Would  not  a  moral  universe  of  perfect 
holiness,  and  of  course  perfect  happiness,  be 
happier  and  better  than  one  comprising  ^  sin 
and  its  miseries?'  And  must  not  infinite 
benevolence  accomplish  all  the  good  he  can  ? 
Would  not  a  benevolent  God,  then,  had  it 
been  possible  to  him  in  the  nature  of  things, 
have  secured  the  existence  of  universal  holi- 
ness in  his  moral  kingdom?"  Concio  ad 
Clerura. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  publication  of 
such  sentiments  created  alarm  among  the 


30  QUOTATION   FROM    MR.    FINNEY. 

orthodox  clergy  of  New-England;  and  that 
speedy  efforts  were  made  to  arrest  their  pro- 
gress. 

Unhappily,  they  soon  found  their  way  to 
New  York,  and  through  the  agency  of  Mr. 
Finney  and  others,  obtained  considerable 
currency.  Mr.  Finney's  views  will  appear 
from  the  following  quotation.  In  reply  to  an 
objection  that  as  God  "  is  almighty,  he  could 
prevent  sin  if  he  pleased,"  &c.,  he  observes: 
"  To  say  nothing  of  his  word  and  oath  upon 
this  subject,  you  have  only  to  look  into  his 
law  to  see  that  he  has  done  all  that  the  na- 
ture of  the  case  admitted  to  prevent  the  ex- 
istence of  sin.  The  sanctions  of  his  law  are 
absolutely  infinite:  in  them  he  has  embodied 
and  held  forth  the  highest  possible  motives 
to  obedience.  His  law  is  moral  and  not 
physical;  a  government  of  motive  and  not 
of  force.  It  is  in  vain  to  talk  of  his  omnipo- 
tence preventing  sin.  If  infinite  motives  can- 
not prevent  it,  it  cannot  be  prevented  under 
a  moral  government,  and  to  maintain  the 
contrary  is  absurd  and  a  contradiction.  To 
administer  moral  laws  is  not  the  object  of 
physical  power.  To  maintain,  therefore, 
that  the  physical  omnipotence  of  God  can 
prevent  sin,  is  to  talk  nonsense.'' — Sermons 
on  Important  Subjects,  p.  58. 

Similar  language  is  employed  by  him  and 
other  writers  of  the  same  school  with  refer- 
ence to  the  power  of  God  to  convert  sinners, 
and  to  make  the  world  holier  and  happier 
than  it  now  is.     Mr.  Edward  R.  Tyler  [not 


QUOTATIONS    FROM    MR.    TYLER.  31 

Dr.  Tyler]  preached  a  sermon  at  New  Haven, 
Oct.  1829,  (published  by  request,)  in  whicli 
occur  the  following  sentences:*  '^  He  [God] 
does  not  prefer  the  present  system  to  one 
which  might  have  presented  itself  to  His 
choice,  had  it  been  possible  to  retain  all 
moral  beings  in  obedience;  but  prefers  it  to 
the  non-existence  of  a  moral  system,  notwith- 
standing sin  is  its  unavoidable  attendant." 
"  The  nature  of  things,  as  they  now  exist, 
forbids,  as  far  as  God  himself  is  concerned, 
the  more  frequent  existence  of  holiness  in 
the  place  of  sin.  How  do  you  know  that 
the  influence  which  He  employs,  even  in 
respect  to  those  who  perish,  is  not  all  ivhich 
the  nature  of  the  case  admits  ?  How  do  you 
know  that  he  can  maintain  his  moral  govern- 
ment, or  preserve  moral  agents  in  being  as 
such,  and  prevent  sin  ?  Do  you  not  pass  the 
boundaries  of  human  knowledge  in  saying 
that  He  is  able  to  prevent  all  sin,  while  He 
preserves,  unimpaired,  the  freedom  of  ac- 
countable beings  ?  Such  may  be  the  nature 
of  free  agents  that  they  cannot  be  governed 
in  a  manner  to  exclude  sin,  or  to  restrict  if 
to  a  smaller  co77ipass  than  it  actually  pos- 
sesses.'^ "  Such  is  the  nature  of  free  agents, 
that  God  foresaw  he  could  not  create  them 
without  liability  to  err  and  actual  transgres- 
sion. He  knew  at  the  same  time,  that  the 
best  possible  system  included  such  beings; 

*  Mr.  Tyler  Avas  at  that  time  Pastor  of  the  South  Church 
in  r^Iiddletown;  Conn. 


32  VIEWS    OF    PROFESSOR    FITCH. 

that  is,  beings  capable  of  knowing  and  loving 
Him.  He  regretted,  as  He  abundantly 
teaches  us  in  His  word,  that  some  of  those 
whom  he  was  about  to  create  would  sin. 
Had  it  been  possible  to  secure  them  all  in 
obedience,  more  happiness  would  have  been 
enjoyed  by  his  creatures,  and  equal  glory 
would  have  surrounded  His  own  throne. 
But  although  the  system  which  he  saw  to  be 
best,  could  not  be  realized  in  consequence  of 
the  anticipated  perversion  of  moral  agency, 
he  perceived  a  system  such  as  he  has  adopt- 
ed, notwithstanding  the  evil  attending  it,  to 
be  preferable  to  any  which  should  exclude 
moral  beings."  "It  is  to  him  a  subject 
of  regret  and  grief,  yet  men  transgress;  they 
rebel  in  spite  of  his  wishes ;  they  persevere 
in  sin  in  spite  of  all  lohich  he  can  do  to 
reclaim  them.'''' 

A  writer  in  the  Christian  Spectator  [believ- 
ed to  be  Professor  Fitch,]  advances  the  same 
ideas.  "  Whatever  degree  or  kind  of  influ- 
ence'^ says  he,  "  is  used  with  them,  to  favour 
their  return  to  him,  at  any  given  time,  is  as 
strongly  favourable  to  their  conversion  as 
it  CAN  be  made  amid  the  obstacles  ivhich  a 
loorld  of  guilty  and  rebellious  moral  agents 
opp)ose  to  God's  ivorks  of  grace.''' — Review 
of  Dr.  Fisk's  Discourse  on  Predestination  and 
Election. 

In  accordance  with  these  sentiments,  it  was 
not  uncommon  a  few  years  ago  in  some  parts 
of  New  York,  to  hear  from  the  pulpit  and  in 
the  lecture  room,  that  God  is  doing  all  He 


REMARK    or    MR.    BEECIIER.  33 

can  to  convert  and  save  sinners — that  if  He 
could,  He  would  convert  many  more  tlian 
He  does — that  He  converts  as  many  as  He 
can  'persuade  to  yield  their  hearts  to  Him — 
and  other  expressions  to  the  same  effect.  Of 
very  similar  import  is  the  remark  attributed 
to  a  son  of  Dr.  Beecher,  which,  according  to 
the  Hartford  Christian  Watchman,  was  one 
cause  of  Dr.  Porter's  anxiety  in  relation  to 
the  father — it  having  been  reported  that  he 
approved  of  the  sentiment,  viz.  "  that  though 
God  is  physically  omnipotent,  He  has  not  ac- 
quired moral  power  enough  to  govern  the 
universe  according  to  his  will." 

How  different  these  statements  are  from 
the  old  theology,  will  appear  by  a  reference 
to  the  Confession  of  Faith;  which  teaches 
that  God  "hath  most  sovereign  dominion  over 
his  creatures,  to  do  by  them,  for  them,  and 
upon  them,  whatsoever  himself  pleaseth" — 
that  He  is  "Almighty,  most  absolute,  work- 
ing all  things  according  to  the  counsel  of  His 
own  immutable  and  most  righteous  will,  for 
his  own  glory."  They  are  equally  at  variance 
with  the  word  of  God,  which  declares  that 
"  he  doeth  according  to  his  will  in  the  army 
of  heaven,  and  among  the  inhabitants  of  the 
earth ;  and  none  can  stay  his  hand,  or  say 
unto  him,  what  doest  thou?" 

The  positions  assumed  by  Dr.  Taylor  and 
others,  besides  being  unscriptural,  are  be- 
lieved by  many  to  involve  principles  which 
are  subversive  of  some  important  Scripture 
doctrines.     They  place  such  limits  upon  the 


34  god's  happiness  diminished. 

2iower  of  God,  as  to  be  a  virtual  denial  of  his 
omnipotence.  They  make  him  so  dependent 
upon  his  creatures  as  to  render  him  liable  to 
disappointment,  and  consequently  to  ,a  di- 
minution of  his  happiness.  Dr.  Taylor, 
or  one  of  his  friends,  admits  that  his  bless- 
edness has  been  diminished  by  the  existence 
of  sin.  "It  is  adm.itted  that  what  men 
have  done  to  impair  the  blessedness  of  God 
by  sin,  has  not  failed  of  its  results  in  the  ac- 
tual diminution  of  his  blessedness,  compared 
with  what  it  had  been,  had  they  obeyed  his 
perfect  law." — Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  vol.  v. 
p.  693.  Mr.  Tyler,  who  has  just  been  referred 
to,  makes  the  same  admission.  "  This  doc- 
trine,'' he  remarks,  "  is  said  to  be  inconsistent 
with  the  happiness  of  God.  And  we  admit, 
that  as  far  as  his  happiness  is  affected  by  the 
conduct  of  his  creatures,  he  would  have  been 
better  pleased  had  angels  and  men  always 
remained  steadfast  in  his  fear  and  service." 

They  involve  a  denial  of  the  Divine  de- 
crees— for  if  God  does  not  possess  such  abso- 
lute control  over  his  creatures  that  he  can 
govern  them  according  to  his  pleasure,  how 
could  he  have  decreed  any  thing  uncondition- 
ally concerning  them,  since  it  might  happen, 
that  in  the  exercise  of  their  free  agency,  they 
would  act  contrary  to  the  Divine  purpose? 
On  the  same  principle  they  virtually  reject 
•  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  election,  and  make 
election  depend  upon  the  foreknowledge  of 
God  and  the  will  of  the  creature.  This  is 
actually  the  way  in  which  Mr.  Finney  ex- 


DECREES  AND  ELECTION  DENIED.      35 

plains  the  doctrine.  "  The  elect,  then,"  says 
he,  "  must  be  those  who  God  foresaw  could 
be  converted  under  the  wisest  administra- 
tion of  his  government.  That  administering 
it  in  a  way  that  would  be  most  beneficial  to  all 
worlds,  exerting  such  an  amount  of  moral  in- 
fluence on  every  individual  as  would  result,  on 
the  whole,  in  the  greatest  good  to  his  divine 
kingdom,  he  foresaw  that  certain  individuals 
could,  with  this  wisest  amount  of  moral  in- 
fluence, be  reclaimed  and  sanctified,  and  for 
this  reason,  they  were  chosen  to  eternal  life." 
"  The  elect  were  chosen  to  eternal  life,  be- 
cause God  foresaw  that  in  the  perfect  exer- 
cise of  their  freedom  they  could  be  induced 
to  repent  and  embrace  the  gospel."  "  In 
choosing  his  elect,  you  must  understand  that 
he  has  thrown  the  responsibility  of  their  being 
saved  upon  them:  that  the  whole  is  suspend- 
ed upon  their  consent  to  the  terms;  you  are 
perfectly  able  to  give  your  consent,  and  this 
moment  to  lay  'hold  on  eternal  life.  Irrespec- 
tive of  your  own  choice,  no  election  can  save 
you,  and  no  reprobation  can  damn  you." — 
Sermons  on  Important  Subjects,  p.  224,  25, 
29,  33.  Mr.  Tyler,  from  whose  sermon  Ave 
have  already  quoted,  gives  the  same  explana- 
tion of  this  doctrine,  or,  in  other  words,  vir- 
tually denies  it.  "  God  foresees,"  he  observes, 
"  whom  he  can  make  willing  in  the  day  of 
his  power,  and  resolves  that  they  shall  be 
saved."  Prof.  Fitch  also  advances  the  same 
idea  in  his  review  of  Dr.  Fisk's  discourses  on 


36  DENIAL    OF   SAIIS'TS     PERSEVERANCE. 

Predestination  and  Election,  in  the  Christian 
Spectator. 

The  same  remarks  may  be  made,  substan- 
tially, concerning  the  saints'  perseverance, 
and  even  their  stability  in  heaven.  If  the 
free  will  of  sinners  may  effectually  resist  all 
the  influence  which  God  can  use  for  their 
conversion,  why  may  not  the  free  will  of 
Christians,  under  the  counter  influence  of 
temptation,  break  through  all  the  moral  in- 
fluences which  God  can  bring  to  bear  upon 
them,  and  they  completely  and  eternally  fall 
away?  And  if  so,  why  may  not  the  same 
catastrophe  befall  them  after  they  arrive  at 
heaven?  To  borrow  the  language  of  Dr. 
Tyler :  "  If  his  creatures  are  so  independent 
of  him  that  he  cannot  control  them  at  plea- 
sure, what  assurance  can  he  give  us  that 
every  saint  and  every  angel  will  not  yet  apos- 
tatize and  spread  desolation  through  the  mo- 
ral universe?" 

Horrible  as  this  thought  is,  it  appears  to 
be  a  legitimate  consequence  from  the  reason- 
ing of  the  New  Haven  divines.  "  But  this 
possibility  that  moral  agents  will  sin,  remains 
(suppose  what  else  you  will)  so  long  as 
moral  agency  remains;  and  how  can  it  be 
proved  that  a  thing  will  not  be,  when,  for 
aught  that  appears,  it  may  be?  When  in 
view  of  all  the  facts  and  evidence  in  the  case 
it  remains  true  that  it  may  be,  what  evidence 
or  proof  can  exist  that  it  loill  not  be?" — 
Ch.  Spec.  1830, p.  563.  Again:  "We  know 
that  a  moral  system  necessarily  implies  the 


REaiARKS    FR03I    A    PERIODICAL.  37 

existence  of  free  agents,  with  the  power  to 
act  in  despite  of  all  opposing  power.  This 
fact  sets  human  reason  at  defiance  in  every 
attempt  to  prove  that  some  of  these  agents 
will  not  use  that  power  and  actually  sin." 
Ch.  Spec.  1831,  p.  617.  If,  then,  the  saints 
and  angels  in  heaven  are  '^ free  agents,^- 
they  have,  according  to  the  above  reasoning, 
"the  power  to  act  in  despite  of  all  opposing 
power,''  and  it  cannot  be  proved  "  that  some 
of  these  agents  will  not  use  that  power  and 
actually  sin." 

On  this  subject  we  will  quote  some  perti- 
nent remarks  from  "  Views  in  Theology,"  a 
periodical  published  in  New  York.  "  It  is  as 
true  of  angels  and  the  spirits  of  just  men 
made  perfect,  that  they  are  moral  agents,  and 
that  their  powers  are  the  same  in  kind  that 
are  known  to  originate  sin,  as  it  is  of  us;  as 
clear  that  if  God  '^  should  begin  and  pursue 
any  method  of  providence  and  government" 
over  them,  "  the  causes  which  originate  sin 
would  still  exist  in  kind,  under  his  provi- 
dence," as  it  is,  that  they  would  among  men; 
and  "  since  under  any  system  of  providence, 
the  condition  of  his  creatures  must  be  con- 
stantly changing;"  as  clear,  therefore — if  the 
powers  of  moral  agency  alone  be  considered 
— "  that  among  these  fluctuations,  there  may 
arise  conjunctures  under  any  providence,  in 
which  temptations  will  rise  and  prevail  to 
the  overthrow  of  some  of  those  creatures," 
as  it  is  that  they  may,  under  any  providence, 
over  such  beings  as  ourselves. 


38  REMARKS    OF    DR.    GRIFFIX. 

"  On  the  principles  then,  on  which  his  rea- 
soning proceeds,  we  not  only  have  no  cer- 
tainty of  the  continued  obedience  of  holy, 
angelic,  and  redeemed  spirits,  but  have  an 
absolute  probability  of  their  universally  yield- 
ing to  rebellion  at  some  period  of  their  exis- 
tence, notwithstanding  every  species  and  de- 
gree of  preventing  influence  that  God  can 
exert  over  them!'^ 

To  these,  we  will  add  the  following  from 
Dr.  Griffin:  "  If  God  could  not  have  prevent- 
ed sin  in  all  worlds  and  ages,  he  cannot  pre- 
vent sin  in  any  world  or  age,  or  in  any  crea- 
ture at  any  time,  except  by  preventing  the 
particular  occasion  and  temptation.  If  God 
could  not  have  prevented  sin  in  the  universe, 
he  cannot  prevent  believers  from  fatally  fall- 
ing; he  cannot  prevent  Gabriel  and  Paul 
from  sinking  at  once  into  devils,  and  heaven 
from  turning  into  a  hell.  And  were  he  to 
create  new  races  to  fill  the  vacant  seats,  they 
might  turn  to  devils  as  fast  as  he  created 
them,  in  spite  of  any  thing  that  he  could  do 
short  of  destroying  their  moral  agency.  He 
is  liable  to  be  defeated  in  all  his  designs,  and 
to  be  as  miserable  as  he  is  benevolent.  This 
is  infinitely  the  gloomiest  idea  that  was  ever 
thrown  upon  the  world.  It  is  gloomier  than 
hell  itself.  For  this  involves  only  the  de- 
struction of  a  part,  but  that  involves  the 
wretchedness  of  God  and  his  whole  creation. 
And  how  awfully  gloomy  as  it  respects  the 
prospects  of  individual  believers.  You  have 
no   security  that  you  shall  stand  an   hour. 


PRACTICAL  EFFECTS  OF  THE  NEW  VIEWS.       39 

And  even  if  you  get  to  heaven,  you  have 
no  certainty  of  remaining  there  a  day.  All 
is  doubt  and  sepulchral  gloom.  And  where 
is  the  glory  of  God?  Where  the  transcend- 
ent glory  of  raising  to  spiritual  life  a  world 
dead  in  trespasses  and  sins?  Where  the  glory 
of  swaying  an  undivided  sceptre,  and  doing 
his  whole  pleasure  "  in  the  army  of  heaven 
and  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth?" — 
Griffin  on  Divine  Efficiency,  pp.  180,  181. 

The  practical  influence  of  these  assump- 
tions is  believed  to  be  no  less  objectionable 
than  their  tendencies  to  error. 

1.  In  relation  to  prayer.  If  we  adopt  the 
principle  that  God  has  not  supreme  control 
over  the  hearts  of  all  men,  how  can  we  with 
confidence  plead  the  fulfilment  of  those  pro- 
mises which  are  to  be  accomplished  by  the 
instrumentality  of  his  creatures?  However 
willing  he  may  be  to  answer  our  prayers, 
there  may  be  found  among  the  various  agents 
to  be  employed,  some  Pharaoh,  so  much  more 
obstinate  than  the  king  of  Egypt,  that  no 
influence  which  God  can  employ,  will  incline 
him  to  let  his  people  go — or  some  Ahithophel, 
so  nuich  more  sagacious  and  influential  than 
the  counsellor  of  Absalom,  that  the  Lord  will 
not  be  able  to  "turn  his  counsel  to  foolish- 
ness,'' and  bring  back  his  own  anointed  to 
the  throne  of  Israel. 

2.  If  we  believe  ourselves  so  independent 
of  God,  that  we  can  successfully  resist  any 
moral  influence  which  he  can  bring  to  bear 
upon  our  minds,  how  feeble  will  be  the  in- 


40       PRACTICAL  EFFECTS  OF  THE    NEW  VIEWS. 

centives  to  the  exercise  of  humility?  Tell  a 
carnal,  unregenerate  man,  that  though  God 
had  physical  power  to  create  him,  he  has  not 
moral  power  to  govern  him,  and  you  could 
not  furnish  his  mind  with  better  aliment  for 
pride  and  rebellion.  Should  you,  after  giv- 
ing this  lesson,  press  upon  him  the  claims  of 
Jehovah,  you  might  expect  to  be  answered, 
as  Moses  was  by  the  proud  oppressor  of 
Israel:  "Who  is  the  Lord, that  1  should  obey 
his  voice?" 

3.  The  same  may  be  said  in  regard  to  sub- 
mission. Of  this,  the  case  just  referred  to 
affords  an  ample  illustration.  What  a  miser- 
able reflection  it  would  have  been  to  present 
to  an  enslaved  Israelite,  that  he  ought  to  sub- 
mit cheerfully  to  his  bondage,  because  it  was 
not  in  the  power  of  the  Lord  to  prevent  it! 
Men  are  free  agents :  in  the  exercise  of  that 
agency,  your  ancestors  loould  settle  them- 
selves in  Egypt — and  in  the  exercise  of  the 
same  agency,  the  Egyptians  ivould  enslave 
them !  God  knew  that  such  would  be  the  re- 
sult, and  he  would  have  hindered  it  if  he 
could,  but  could  not,  without  destroying 
their  free  agency !  "  Free  moral  agents  can 
do  wrong  under  every  possible  influence  to 
prevent  it." 

4.  Such  reflections  aflbrd  as  little  founda- 
tion for  gratitude  as  for  submission.  Why 
do  we  feel  grateful  to  God  for  those  favours 
which  are  conferred  upon  us  by  the  agency 
of  our  fellow  men,  except  on  the  principle 
that  they  are  only  instruments  in  his  hand — 


DIFFERENCE  >0T  IXAGIXARY  BUT  REAL.       41 

who,  without  "  offering  the  least  violence  to 
their  wills,  or  taking  away  the  liberty  or 
contingency  of  second  causes,"  '^*hath  most 
sovereign  dominion  over  them,  to  do  by 
them,  for  them,  and  upon  them,  whatsoever 
himself  pleaseth!"  On  any  other  ground, 
they  would  be  worthy  of  the  principal^  and 
he  only  of  secondary  praise. 

In  conclusion,  we  will  observe,  (adopting 
the  language  of  the  "  Views^in  Theology," 
already  referred  to.)  "  The  great  questions  in- 
volved in  this  controversy,  it  is  sufficiently 
apparent  from  the  foregoing  discussion,  are 
not  of  mere  ordinary  interest,  but  vitally  im- 
portant ;  and  the  decisions  that  are  formed 
respecting  them  by  the  teachers  of  religion, 
must  exert  a  momentous  influence  on  the 
churches  and  religion  of  our  country.  The 
subjects  to  which  they  relate — the  attributes 
of  God,  the  reality  and  nature  of  his  govern- 
ment, the  doctrines  of  his  word,  the  nature 
of  the  mind,  the  laws  of  its  agency,  the  causes 
that  influence  it — if  any  are  entitled  to  that 
rank,  are  fundamental:  and  the  problems 
which  it  is  the  object  of  the  controversy  to 
solve,  whether  God  is  almighty  as  a  moral 
and  providential  ruler  as  well  as  creator,  or 
weak  and  liable  to  perpetual  frustration; 
whether  he  is  wholly  able,  or  wholly  unable 
to  prevent  moral  beings  from  sinning;  whe- 
ther he  can  or  cannot  determine  and  foresee 
the  events  of  their  agency,  and  thence  whether 
his  predictions,  threatenings  and  promises  are 
true  or  false — indisputably  involve  all  that  is 
4 


42  COVENANT    WITH    ADAM. 

essential  in  Christianity;  and  the  scheme 
which  affirms  the  one  is  as  diverse  from  that 
which  asserts  tlie  other,  as  hght  is  from  dark- 
ness, and  truth  from  falsehood."  "  The  ques- 
tion between  them,  is  nothing  less  than  the 
question — of  two  wholly  dissimilar  and  con- 
tradictory systems,  which  is  it  that  is  the  gos- 
pel of  the  grace  of  God,  and  which  therefore 
is  it  that  wholly  contradicts  and  subverts  the 
gospel?" 


CHAPTER  II. 

god's  covenant  with  ADAM,  AND  OUR  RELATION  TO  HIM  AS 
OUR  FEDERAL  HEAD INVOLVING  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  IMPU- 
TATION AND  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

According  to  Witsius,  "  A  covenant  of  God 
with  man  is  an  agreement  between  God  and 
man,  about  the  method  of  obtaining  consum- 
mate happiness,  with  the  addition  of  a  threat- 
ening of  eternal  destruction,  with  which  the 
despiser  of  the  happiness  offered  in  that  way 
is  to  be  punished."  Such  a  covenant  God 
made  with  Adam  before  the  fall;  and  through 
him  with  all  his  posterity — he  acting  as  their 
federal  head  and  representative.  "  The  first 
covenant  made  with  man,"  says  our  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  "  was  a  covenant  of  works, 
wherein  life  was  promised  to  Adam,  and  in 
him  to  his  posterity,  upon  condition  of  perfect 


COVENANT    WITH    ADAM.  43 

and  personal  obedience" — (as  our  catechism 
adds,)  "  forbidding  him  to  eat  of  the  tree  of 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil  upon  pain  of 
death."  This  has  been  the  common  senti- 
ment among  the  reformed  churches  since  the 
time  of  Luther  and  Calvin.  It  also  formed 
a  part  of  the  creed  of  the  early  Christian 
Fathers. 

Some  of  the  reasons  for  this  doctrine,  are 
the  following: 

1.  The  law  given  to  Adam  in  Gen.  ii.  16, 
17,  contained  all  the  essential  properties  of  a 
covenant;  viz.  parties,  a  condition,  a  penalty, 
and  an  implied  promise.  It  is  not  essential 
to  a  covenant  that  the  parties  should  be  equal 
— nor  was  it  necessary  in  the  present  case, 
that  Adam  should  give  a  formal  consent  to 
the  terms  proposed ;  because  they  were  bind- 
ing upon  him  as  a  creature  of  God,  indepen- 
dent of  his  consent.  But  inasmuch  as  he 
was  created  in  the  image  of  God,  and  had  his 
law  written  in  his  heart,  there  was  undoubt- 
edly a  cordial  assent  to  the  proposed  con- 
dition. 

2.  That  transaction  is  referred  to  by  the 
prophet  Hosea,  under  the  name  of  a  cove- 
nant. "  But  they  like  men  [Heb.  like  Adam,] 
have  transgressed  the  covenant."  Hosea  vi.  7. 
Upon  this  passage  Henry  remarks,  '^  Herein 
they  trod  in  the  steps  of  our  first  parents ; 
they,  like  Adam,  have  transgressed  the  cove- 
nant; (so  it  might  very  well  be  read;)  as  he 
transgressed  the  covenant  of  innocency,  so 
they  transgressed  the  covenant  of  grace;  so 


44         ADA3I  OUR  FEDERAL  HEAD. 

treacherously,  so  foolishly;  there  in  paradise, 
he  violated  his  engagements  to  God;  and 
there  in  Canaan,  another  paradise,  they  vio- 
lated their  engagements.  And  by  their  trea- 
cherous dealing  they,  like  Adam,  have  ruin- 
ed themselves  and  theirs.^'  This  text  has  no 
definite  sense,  unless  it  refers  to  Adam. 

3.  Christ  is  said  to  have  been  given  *^  for 
a  covenant  of  the  people;"  (Isa.  xlii.  6,)  and 
since  a  parallel  is  drawn  by  the  apostles  be- 
tween Christ  and  Adam ;  the  latter  being 
called  the  first,  and  the  former  the  second 
Adam  ;  the  analogy  requires  us  to  regard  the 
first  Adam,  as  a  party  to  a  covenant. 

The  representative  character  of  Adam  may 
be  proved  by  the  following  considerations. 
All  the  dispensations  of  Jehovah  concerning 
Adam  before  the  fall,  respected  his  posterity 
as  well  as  himself;  such  as  dominion  over 
the  creatures,  liberty  to  eat  of  the  productions 
of  the  earth,  the  law  of  marriage,  &c.  When 
God  made  this  covenant  with  Adam,  it  does 
not  appear  that  Eve  was  yet  formed — and 
yet  it  is  manifest  from  her  reply  to  the  temp- 
ter, (Gen.  iii.  2,  3,)  that  she  considered  her- 
self as  included  in  the  transaction.  The  con- 
sequences of  Adam's  transgression  affected 
his  posterity  as  well  as  himself  Gen.  iii.  16, 
19  ;  Rom.  v.  12  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  22.  The  apos- 
tle draws  a  parallel  between  Christ  and 
Adam ;  in  which  he  describes  Christ  as  the 
representative  of  his  spiritual  seed,  as  Adam 
was  of  his  natural  seed.  Rom.  v.  12,  19; 
1  Cor.  XV.  22.     But  how  did  Christ  repre- 


IMPUTATION    AND    ORIGINAL    SIN.  45 

sent  his  seed  except  in  the  covenant  of  grace? 
Adam,  therefore,  must  have  represented  his 
in  the  covenant  of  works. 

That  covenant  made  with  Adam  and 
through  him  with  his  posterity,  involves  the 
doctrine  of  imputation  and  original  sin.  De- 
stroy that  and  you  destroy  these — they  must 
stand  or  fall  together.  And  as  they  are  both 
based  upon  the  same  covenant,  so  they  are 
closely  connected  with  each  other.  "  So  far 
as  I  know,'^  says  President  Edwards,  "  most 
of  those  who  hold  one  of  these  have  main- 
tained the  other ;  and  most  of  those  who  have 
opposed  one  have  opposed  the  other.  And 
it  may  perhaps  appear  in  our  future  consid- 
eration of  the  subject,  that  they  are  closely 
connected,  and  that  the  arguments  which 
prove  the  one,  establish  the  other,  and  that 
there  are  no  more  difficulties  attending  the 
allowing  of  one  than  the  other.^^ 

Upon  these  points  the  Confession  of  Faith 
teaches,  that  our  first  parents  "being  the 
root  of  all  mankind;  the  guilt  of  this  sin 
[eating  the  forbidden  fruit]  was  imputed,  and 
the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted  nature 
conveyed  to  all  their  posterity,  descending 
from  them  by  ordinary  generation'^ — and 
that  "  from  this  original  corruption,  whereby 
we  are  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made 
opposite  to  all  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to 
all  evil,  do  proceed  all  actual  transgressions.^^ 
The  phrase  "root  of  all  mankind,"  it  is  evi- 
dent from  the  proof  texts,  refers  not  merely 
to  natural  relation,  but  also  to  covenant  head- 


46        ORIGI^iAL  SIN — EDWARDs'  DEFINITION'. 

ship ;  the  latter  being  the  principal  founda- 
tion upon  which  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin 
is  imputed  to  us ;  while  the  former  is  the 
channel  through  which  our  corrupted  nature 
is  conveyed.  '^  Original  sin  is  conveyed  from 
our  first  parents  unto  their  posterity  by  na- 
tural generation,  so  as  all  that  proceed  from 
them  in  that  way,  are  conceived  and  born  in 
sin." — Larger  Catechism.  Imputation  re- 
gards us  as  being  responsible  in  law,  for 
what  Adam  did  as  our  representative — and 
as  a  punishment  for  his  sin,  our  original 
righteousness  was  lost,  and  we  are  born  with 
a  corrupt  disposition.  This  is  what  is  meant 
by  original  sin. 

As  President  Edwards  is  often  referred  to 
as  a  standard  author  on  these  points  we  will 
quote  a  few  sentences  from  his  work  on  ori- 
ginal sin.  "  By  original  sin,  says  he,  as  the 
phrase  has  been  most  commonly  used  by 
divines,  is  meant  the  innate  sinful  depravity 
of  the  heart.  But  yet  when  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin  is  spoken  of,  it  is  vulgarly  under- 
stood in  that  latitude,  as  to  include  not  only 
the  depravity  of  ?iature,  hut  the  imputation 
of  Adarri^s  first  sin;  or,  in  other  words,  the 
liableness  or  exposedness  of  Adam's  posterity 
in  the  divine  judgment,  to  partake  of  the 
punishment  of  that  sin." 

By  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  then, 
according  to  President  Edwards,  is  meant 
liability  to  punishment  on  account  of  his  sin 
— and  by  original  sin,  the  inherent  depravity 
of  our  nature.     This  we  believe  is  hi  exact 


IMPUTATION VIEWS  OF  DR.  HODGE.  47 

accordance  with  our  standards,  as  they  are 
understood  by  our  most  approved  commen- 
tators. 

Dr.  Hodge,  in  his  commentary  on  the  Ro- 
mans, observes,  "  This  doctrine  [of  imputa- 
tion] does  not  include  the  idea  of  a  mysterious 
identity  of  Adam  and  his  race ;  nor  that  of  a 
transfer  of  the  moral  turpitude  of  his  sin  to 
his  descendants.  It  does  not  teach  that  his 
offence  was  personally  or  properly  the  sin  of 
all  men,  or  that  his  act  was,  in  any  mysteri- 
ous sense,  the  act  of  his  posterity.  "The 
sin  of  Adam,  therefore,  is  no  ground  to  us  of 
remorse.'^  "  This  doctrine  merely  teaches 
that  in  virtue  of  the  union  representative  and 
natural,  between  Adam  and  his  posterity, 
his  sin  is  the  ground  of  their  condemnation, 
that  is,  of  their  subjection  to  penal  evils.^^ 
In  reference  to  original  sin,  he  says,  "  it  is 
not,  however,  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures, 
nor  of  the  reformed  churches,  nor  of  our 
standards,  that  the  corruption  of  nature  of 
which  they  speak,  is  any  depravation  of  the 
soul,  or  an  essential  attribute,  or  the  infusion 
of  any  positive  evil."  "  These  confessions 
[of  the  reformers]  teach  that  original  right- 
eousness ivas  lost,  and  by  that  defect  the 
tendency  to  sin,  or  corrupt  disposition,  or 
corruption  of  nature,  is  occasioned.  Though 
they  speak  of  original  sin  as  being  first  nega- 
tive, i.  e.  the  loss  of  righteousness ;  and 
secondly,  positive,  or  corruption  of  nature; 
yet  by  the  latter,  they  state,  is  to  be  under- 
stood, not  the  infusion  of  any  thing  in  itself 


48  NEW    SCHOOL   THEORY. 

sinful^  but  an  actual  tendency  or  disposition 
to  evil  resulting  from  the  loss  of  righteous- 
ness." As  some  of  the  strongest  objections  to 
these  doctrines  arise  either  from  misunder- 
standing or  misrepresenting  them,  the  only- 
answer  which  is  necessary  in  many  instances, 
is,  to  show  that  the  doctrines  as  held  by  those 
who  embrace  them,  are  not  what  the  objector 
supposes.  The  above  quotations  will  serve 
to  show  what  are  the  true  doctrines  on  this 
subject.  Some  of  the  proofs  by  which  they 
are  substantiated,  together  with  such  remarks 
as  may  occur  to  us,  will  be  reserved  for  a 
subsequent  chapter.*  ♦ 

We  will  now  state  with  as  much  accuracy 
as  we  are  capable  of,  what  we  understand  to 
be  the  New  School  doctrines  in  reference  to 
this  subject.  According  to  the  New  Theo- 
logy, there  was  not  in  the  proper  sense  of  the 
word  any  covenant  made  with  Adam,  but  he 
was  merely  placed  under  a  law.  He  was 
not  the  federal  head  or  representative  of 
his  posterity,  but  only  their  natural  parent. 
Though  as  his  descendants,  we  feel  the  effects 
of  his  sin,  and  become  sinful  ourselves  in 
consequence  of  it,  the  doctrine  that  his  sin 
was  imputed  to  us  is  unjust  and  absurd.   All 

*  To  any  one  who  desires  particular  information  on 
these  points,  we  recommend  the  commentary  of  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Hodge,  from  which  we  have  just  quoted.  There  is  no 
work  within  my  knowledge,  which  to  me  is  so  clear  and 
satisfactory  in  its  statements  and  reasonings  on  this  sub- 
ject ;  and  I  believe  it  expresses  the  views  which  are  gene- 
rally entertained  by  those  who  are  denominated  the  "  Old 
School"  or  "  Orthodox"  portion  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 


NEW  SCHOOL  THEORY.  49 

sin  and  holiness  consist  in  acts.  To  speak  of 
a  sinful  or  holy  nature,  (except  in  a  figurative 
sense)  is,  therefore,  absurd.  When  Adam  was 
created  he  was  neither  sinful  nor  holy,  but  he 
acquired  a- holy  character  by  the  perform- 
ance of  holy  acts,  i.  e.  by  choosing  God  as 
his  supreme  good,  and  placing  his  affections 
upon  him.  Jesus  Christ,  though  called  holy 
at  his  birth,  was  so  merely  in  the  sense  of 
dedicated,  and  not  as  possessing  (morally 
considered)  a  holy  nature.  When  we  are 
born  we  possess  no  moral  character  any  more 
than  brutes,  but  we  acquire  a  moral  charac- 
ter as  soon  as  we  arrive  at  moral  agency,  and 
put  forth  moral  acts.  In  the  sense  in  which 
it  has  been  commonly  understood,  there  is 
no  such  thing  as  original  sin,  there  being  no 
other  original  sin  than  the  first  sin  a  child 
commits  after  arriving  at  moral  agency. 
Children  are  born  with  the  same  nature  as 
Adam  possessed  at  his  creation — and  the  dif- 
ference between  us  and  him  is,  that  we  are 
born  in  different  circumstances ;  and  that 
the  inferior  powers  of  our  nature  have  ob- 
tained greater  relative  strength;  from  which 
it  universally  results  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that 
our  first  acts  are  sinful,  instead  of  being  holy 
as  his  were;  i.  e.  we  do  not  choose  God  as 
the  object  of  our  supreme  affection,  but  the 
world — and  this  choice  of  the  v/orld  as  our 
chief  good  is  what  constitutes  human  de- 
pravity. 

Before  referring  to   our    authorities,  we 
wish  to  observe  that  those  who  hold  either 
5 


50     NEW  SCHOOL  WRITERS  STILL  USE  OLD  TERMS. 

wholly  or  in  part  to  the  above  doctrines, 
have  not  entirely  laid  aside  the  use  of  the 
terms,  covenant,  imputation,  original  sin,  &c. 
— but  they  employ  them  in  a  different  sense 
fromi  that  which  has  been  generally  attached 
to  them  by  Calvinistic  writers. 

Mr.  Finney,  for  example,  uses  the  term 
covenant,  in  regard  to  the  transaction  be- 
tween God  and  Adam;  and  yet  he  denies 
that  Adam  was  the  federal  head  of  his  pos- 
terity. His  doctrine  appears  to  be  that  all 
mankind  were  placed  prospectively  imder 
the  covenant  of  works,  and  were  to  have  a 
trial  or  probation,  each  one  for  himself,  simi- 
lar to  what  Adam  had;  and  that  from  their 
connexion  with  him  as  their  natural  parent, 
it  so  happens  that  they  all  break  the  cove- 
nant as  soon  as  they  arrive  at  moral  agency, 
and  thus  become  sinners.  His  language  is, 
"I  suppose  that  mankind  were  originally 
all  under  a  covenant  of  ivorks,  and  that 
Adam  was  not  so  their  head  or  representa- 
tive, that  his  obedience  or  disobedience  in- 
volved them  irresistibly  in  sin  and  condem- 
nation, irrespective  of  their  own  acts." — Lec- 
tures to  Professing  Christians,  p.  286.  Take 
these  words  in  connexion  with  what  pre- 
cedes, and  their  import  will  be  more  obvious. 
"It  has  been  supposed  by  many,  says  he, 
that  there  was  a  covenant  made  with  Adam 
such  as  this,  that  if  he  continued  to  obey  the 
law  for  a  limited  period,  all  his  posterity 
should  be  confirmed  in  holiness  and  happi- 
ness for  ever.     What  the  reason  is  for  this 


NEW  SCHOOL  WRITERS  STILL  USE  OLD  TERMS.    51 

belief,  I  am  unable  to  ascertain:  I  am  not 
aware  that  the  doctrine  is  taught  in  the  Bi- 
ble." Here  he  alludes  in  direct  terms  to  the 
common  doctrine,  and  expresses  his  dissent 
from  it.  But  what  does  he  hold?  "  Adam," 
says  he,  "  was  the  natural  head  of  the  hu- 
man race,  and  his  sin  has  involved  them  in 
its  consequences ;  but  not  on  the  principle 
that  his  sin  is  literally  accounted  their  sin." 
S^Qusere:  Who  does  maintain  this  opinion?] 
"The  truth,"  he  adds,  "is  simply  this:  that 
from  the  relation  in  which  he  stood  as  their 
natural  head^  as  a  matter  of  fact,  his  sin  has 
resulted  in  the  sin  and  ruin  of  his  posterity." 
Then  follows  what  we  first  quoted.  Thus  it 
appears  that  though  he  employs  the  terms 
covenant  of  works,  he  rejects  the  doctrine 
which  is  generally  entertained  by  those  who 
use  them.  He  intends  one  thing  by  them, 
and  they  another. 

Mr.  Barnes,  in  the  seventh  edition  of  his 
Notes  on  the  Romans,  (p.  128,)  uses  the  word 
impute^  in  reference  to  the  guilt  of  Adam's 
first  sin;  though  by  a  comparison  between 
his  remarks  here,  and  some  which  are  found 
in  other  parts  of  the  book,  it  is  evident  he 
attaches  a  different  meaning  to  the  word, 
from  what  is  common  among  Calvinistic  wri- 
ters. He  says,  (p.  95,)  "I  have  examined 
all  the  passages"  where  the  word  occurs  in 
the  Old  Testament,  "  and  as  the  result  of  my 
examination,  have  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  there  is  not  one  in  which  the  word  is 
used  in  the  sense  of  reckoning  or  imputing 


52    EXTRACT  FROM  TURRETIN  AND  OWE^^ 

to  a  man  that  which  does  not  strictly  belong 
to  him;  or  of  charging  on  him  that  which 
ought  not  to  be  charged  on  him  as  a  mat- 
ter of  personal  right.  The  word  is  never 
used  to  denote  irnputing  in  the  sense  oi  titans- 
ferring,  or  of  charging  that  on  one  which 
does  not  properly  belong  to  him.  The  same 
is  the  case  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
word  occurs  about  forty  times,  and  in  a  simi- 
lar signification.  No  doctrine  of  transferring, 
or  of  setting  over  to  a  man  what  does  not 
properly  belong  to  him,  be  it  sin  or  holiness, 
can  be  derived,  therefore,  from  this  word." 
The  transfer  of  the  moral  turpitude  of 
Adam's  sin  is  no  part  of  the  doctrine,  as  held 
by  its  advocates — but  this  is  not  what  Mr. 
Barnes  intends  to  deny;  because  he  express- 
ly informs  us  that  by  transferring  he  means 
*'  setting  over  to  a  man  what  does  not  pro- 
perly belong  to  him.''  The  word  impute, 
then,  according  to  him,  is  never  used  in  the 
sense  of  "  setting  over  to  a  man  what  does  not 
properly  belong  to  him" — i.e.  what  ^^ ought 
not  to  be  charged  on  him  as  a  matter  of  y^er- 
sonal  right."  Nor  is  this  doctrine  taught  in 
any  of  these  passages.  How  different  is  this 
from  the  language  of  Turretin  and  Owen,  as 
quoted  by  Dr.  Hodge.  "  Imputation,"  says 
the  former,  ''  is  either  of  something  foreign 
to  us,  or  of  something  properly  our  own. 
Sometimes  that  is  imputed  to  us  which  is  per- 
sonally ours;  in  which  sense  God  imputes  to 
sinners  their  transgressions.  Sometimes  that 
is  imputed  to  us  which  is  without  us,  and  not 


NEW  SCHOOL  WRITERS  STILL  USE  OLD  TERMS.  53 

performed  by  ourselves  ;  thus  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  is  said  to  be  imputed  to  us,  and 
our  sins  are  imputed  to  him,  although  he 
has  neither  sin  in  himself  nor  we  righteous- 
ness. Here  we  speak  of  the  latter  kind  of 
imputation,  not.  the  former,  because  we  are 
talking  of  a  sin  committed  by  Jidam,andnot 

by  us The  foundation,  therefore,  of 

imputation,  is  not  only  the  natural  connexion 
which  exists  between  us  and  Adam,  since, 
in  that  case,  all  his  sins  might  be  imputed  to 
us,  but  mainly  the  moral  and  federal,  in  virtue 
of  which  God  entered  into  covenant  with  him 
as  our  head/^  Owen  says,  "  Things  which 
are  not  our  own  originally ,  inherently,  may 
yet  be  imputed  to  us,  exjustitia,  by  the  rule 
of  righteousness.  And  this  may  be  done 
upon  a  double  relation  unto  those  whose  they 
are.  1.  Federal.  2.  Natural.  Things  done 
by  one  w,ay  be  imputed  unto  others,  propter 
relationein  foederalem,  because  of  a  covenant 
relation  between  them.  So  the  sin  of  Adam 
ivas  imputed  to  all  his  posterity.  And  the 
ground  hereof  is,  that  we  stood  in  the  same 
covenant  with  him  who  was  our  head  and 
representative.^'  ....  "Nothing  is  intended 
by  the  imputation  of  sin  unto  any,  but  the 
rendering  them  justly  obnoxious  unto  the 
punishment  due  unto  that  sin.'' 

Though,  therefore,  Mr.  Barnes  uses  the 
word  impute,  he  does  not  mean  with  these 
authors,  that  Adam's  posterity  were  rendered 
legally  liable  to  punishment  on  account  of  his 
sin ;  but  only  that  they  are  "  subject  to  pain, 


54  NEW  SCHOOL  WRITERS  STILL  USE  OLD  TEEMS. 

and  death,  and  depravity,  as  the  consequence 
of  his  sin;''  ^^ subject  to  depravity  as  the 
consequence ;^^  i.  e.  liable  to  become  depraved 
as  soon  as  they  arrive  at  moral  agency,  on 
account  of  their  being  descended  from  Adam 
who  was  "the  head  of  the  race;"  and  who 
having  sinned,  "  secured  as  a  certain  result 
that  all  the  race  will  be  sinners  also ;"  such 
being  "  the  organization  of  the  great  society 
of  which  he  was  the  head  and  father."  "  The 
drunkard,"  says  he,  "  secures  as  a  result, 
commonly,  that  his  family  will  be  reduced  to 
beggary,  want  and  wo.  A  pirate,  or  a  traitor, 
will  whelm  not  himself  only,  but  his  family 
m  ruin.  Such  is  the  great  law  or  constitution, 
on  which  society  is  now  organized;  and  we 
are  not  to  be  surprised  that  the  same  princi- 
ple occurred  in  the  primary  organization 
of  human  affairs."  Is  this  the  sense  in 
which  our  Confession  of  Faith  uses  the  word 
impute?  I  will  leave  it  for  the  reader  to 
judge. 

Professor  Fitch  of  New  Haven  has  not  laid 
aside  the  phrase  original  sin,  though  the 
whole  drift  of  his  discourses  on  the  nature  of 
sin  is  inconsistent  with  the  common  doctrine, 
and  was  doubtless  intended  to  overthrow  it. 
If  it  be  true,  according  to  him,  "  that  sin,  in 
every  form  and  instance,  is  reducible  to  the 
act  of  a  moral  agent,  in  which  he  violates  a 
known  rule  of  duty,"  how  can  it  be  possible 
that  there  is  any  such  thing  as  is  called  by 
President  Edwards,  "  the  innate  sinful  de- 
pravity of  the  heart .?"   Professor  Fitch  does 


REMARKS  OF  DR.  MILLER.  55 

not  pretend  that  there  is — and  yet  he  would 
make  liis  readers  believe  that  he  holds  to  ori- 
ginal sin,  and  he  tells  us  in  one  of  his  infer- 
ences, that  "the  subject  may  assist  us  in 
making  a  right  explanation  of  the  doctrine.'' 
And  what  is  it?  "Nothing  can  in  truth  be 
called  original  sin,  but  his  first  moral  choice, 
or  preference  being  evil,"  One  can  hardly 
exculpate  him  from  disingenuousness  in  re- 
taining the  terms,  after  having  adopted  prin- 
ciples subversive  of  their  clear  import;  and 
then  employing  them  in  a  sense  materially 
different  from  common  and  long  established 
usage.  He  must  certainly  have  known  that 
his  definition  of  original  sin  is  strikingly  at 
variance  with  that  of  Calvin;  who  describes 
it  as  "  an  hereditary  depravity  and  corrup- 
tion of  our  nature^  diffused  through  every 
part  of  the  soul,  which  first  makes  us  ob- 
noxious to  the  wrath  of  God,  and  then  pro- 
duces those  works  which  the  Scriptures  de- 
nominate the  works  of  the  flesh." 

We  have  extended  these  remarks  so  much 
beyond  what  we  anticipated,  that  the  quota- 
tions we  intended  to  make  in  proof  of  our 
statement  concerning  the  New  School  doc- 
trines, must  be  reserved  for  another  chapter. 
We  will  therefore  close  the  present  chapter 
with  a  fe^  appropriate  and  forcible  observa- 
tions of  Dr.  Miller,  taken  from  his  Letters  to 
Presbyterians.  After  enumerating  most  of  the 
New  School  doctrines  which  are  brought  to 
view  in  this  chapter  and  some  others  which 
we  shall  notice  hereafter,  he  says :  "  If  Pela- 


56  REMARKS  OF  DR.  MILLER. 

gian  and  semi-Pelagian  sentiments  existed 
in  the  Jifth  century,  here  they  are  in  all  their 
unquestionable  and  revolting  features.  More 
particularly  in  regard  to  the  denial  oi  origi- 
nal sin  and  the  assertion  of  the  doctrine  of 
hitman  ability,  Pelagius  and  his  followers 
never  went  further  than  some  of  the  advo- 
cates of  the  doctrines  above  recited.  To  at- 
tempt to  persuade  us  to  the  contrary,  is  to 
suppose  that  the  record  of  the  published  lan- 
guage and  opinions  of  those  ancient  heretics 
is  lost  or  forgotten.  And  to  assert  that  these 
opinions  are  reconcilable  with  the  Calvinistic 
system,  is  to  offer  a  poor  compliment  to  the 
memory  of  the  most  acute,  learned  and  pious 
divines,  that  ever  adorned  the  Church  of  God, 
from  the  days  of  Augustine  to  those  of  the 
venerable  band  of  Puritans,  who,  after  bear- 
ing a  noble  testimony  against  surrounding 
errors  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic,  bore 
the  lamp  of  truth  and  planted  the  standard 
of  Christ  in  this  western  hemisphere."  These 
observations  are  not  introduced  with  a  view 
of  influencing  the  reader  to  receive  the  state- 
ment they  contain,  on  the  mere  authority  of 
a  venerable  name;  nor  of  forestalling  his 
judgment  with  regard  to  the  points  under 
consideration.  All  that  we  expect  or  desire 
is,  that  they  will  influence  him  to  consider 
the  controversy  not  as  consisting  (as  some 
profess  to  believe)  in  a  mere  "strife  about 
words,"  but  as  involving  important  and  dan- 
gerous errors ;  and  will  induce  him  to  give 
that  attention  to  the  proofs  we  are  about  to 


COVENANT  WITH  ADAM.  57 

exhibit,  and  to  other  sources  of  evidence  to 
which  he  may  have  access,  as  will  enable 
him  to  ascertain  to  his  entire  satisfaction, 
whether  these  things  are  so."  If  wise  and 
good  men  now  concur  with  the  "  most  acute, 
learned  pious  divines  that  ever  adorned  the 
Church  of  God"  in  former  days,  in  judging 
these  sentiments  to  be  heretical  and  pernici- 
ous ;  they  claim  the  careful  examination  of 
those  who  attach  any  importance  to  religious 
truth,  and  desire  to  enjoy  its  invaluable  and 
permanent  benefits. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE  PRECEDING  CHAPTER  CONTINUED,  EXHIB- 
ITING THE  NEW  THEOLOGY  CONCERNING  GOd's  COVENANT 
WITH  ADAM,  AS  THE  FEDERAL  HEAD  OF  HIS  POSTERITy, 
IMPUTATION,  ORIGINAL  SIN,  &C. 

Our  Statement  in  the  last  chapter  concerning 
the  New  Theology,  though  embraced  under 
three  or  four  general  heads,  involves  as  many 
other  points,  which  either  grow  out  of  the 
former,  or  are  so  connected  with  them,  that 
our  views  of  the  one  will  materially  affect 
our  sentiments  concerning  the  other.  Accord- 
ingly, in  that  statement,  these  several  par- 
ticulars were  presented;  but  they  are  so  in- 
volved in  each  other,  it  will  not  be  easy  in 
our  quotations  to  keep  them  entirely  distinct. 


58  COVENANT  WITH  ADAM. 

We  shall  therefore  make  no  formal  divisions, 
but  introduce  them  in  such  order  as  we  find 
most  convenient. 

I  will  suppose  myself  in  the  company  of 
several  prominent  ministers,  to  whom  a  gen- 
tleman present  by  the  name  of  Querist,  pro- 
poses the  following  questions: 

Querist. — Mr.  Barnes,  I  have  recently  pe- 
rused your  sermon  on  the  Way  of  Salvation, 
and  your  Notes  on  the  Romans.  Am  I  cor- 
rect in  supposing  that  you  deny  that  any 
covenant  was  made  with  Adam,  as  the  fed- 
eral head  or  representative  of  his  posterity? 

Mr.  Barnes. — "  Nothing  is  said  of  a  cove- 
nant with  him.  No  where  in  the  Scriptures 
is  the  term  covenant  applied  to  any  transac- 
tion with  Adam.  All  that  is  established  here 
is  the  simple  fact  that  Adam  sinned,  and  that 
this  made  it  certain  that  all  his  posterity 
would  be  sinners.  Beyond  this,  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Apostle  does  not  go;  and  all 
else  that  has  been  said  of  this,  is  the  result 
of  mere  philosophical  speculation.'' — Notes 
on  the  Romans,  1st  edition,  p.  128. 

Querist. — Was  not  Christ  the  covenant 
head  of  his  people,  and  does  not  the  Apostle 
draw  a  parallel  between  Adam  and  Christ? 

Mr.  Barnes. — "  A  comparison  is  also  insti- 
tuted between  Adam  and  Christ  in  1  Cor. 
XV.  22 — 25.  The  reason  is,  not  that  Adam 
was  \]\Q  representative  ox  federal  head  of  the 
human  race,  about  which  the  Apostle  says 
nothing,  and  which  is  not  even  implied,  but 
that  he  was  the  first  of  the  race;  he  was  the 


VIEWS  OF  MR.  BARNES.  59 

fountain,  the  head,  the  father ;  and  the  con- 
sequences of  that  first  act,  introducing  sin 
into  the  world,  could  be  seen  ev^ery  wliere. 
The  words  representative  and  federal  head 
are  never  appUed  to  Adam  in  the  Bible. 
The  reason  is,  that  the  word  representative 
implies  an  idea  which  could  not  have  existed 
in  the  case — the  consent  of  those  2vho  are 
represented.  Besides,  the  Bible  does  not 
teach  that  they  acted  in  him,  or  by  him;  or 
that  he  acted /or  them.  No  passage  has  ever 
yet  been  found  that  stated  this  doctrine." — 
Notes  on  the  Romans,  1st  edition,  pp.  120, 121. 

Querist. — I  perceive  that  in  the  later  edi- 
tions of  your  Notes  the  above  phraseology  is 
considerably  changed — have  you  altered  your 
sentiments? 

Mr.  Barnes. — "Some  expressions  in  the 
former  editions  have  been  misunderstood; 
some  are  now  seen  to  have  been  ambiguous; 
a  few  that  have  given  offence  have  been 
changed,  because,  without  abandoning  any 
principle  of  doctrine  or  interpretation,  I 
could  convey  my  ideas  in  language  more 
acceptable  and  less  fitted  to  produce  offence." 
— Advertisement  to  the  fifth  edition.  "  My 
views  have  never  changed  on  the  subject, 
that  I  can  now  recollect." — Mr.  Barnes'  De- 
fence before  the  Second  Presbytery  of  Phila- 
delphia, in  June  and  July,  1835. 

Querist. — Do  you  then  deny  the  doctrine  of 
imputation? 

Mr.  Barnes. — "That  doctrine  is  nothing 
but  an  effort  to  explain  the  manner  of  an 


60 


event  which  the  Apostle  did  not  think  it 
proper  to  attempt  to  explain.  That  doctrine 
is,  in  fact,  no  explanation.  It  is  introducing 
an  additional  difficnlty.  For,  to  say  that  I 
am  blameworthy,  or  ill-deserving,  for  a  sin  in 
which  I  had  no  agency,  is  no  explanation, 
bnt  is  involving  me  in  an  additional  difficulty, 
still  more  perplexing,  to  ascertain  how  such  a 
doctrine  can  possibly  be  just." — Notes  on  the 
Romans,  7th  edition,  pp.  121,  122.  "  Chris- 
tianity does  not  charge  on  men  crimes  of 
which  they  are  not  guilty.  It  does  not  say, 
as  I  suppose,  that  the  sinner  is  held  to  be 
personally  answerable  for  the  transgressions 
of  Adam,  or  of  any  other  man." — Sermon  on 
the  Way  of  Salvation. 

Querist. — You  cannot  be  ignorant,  sir,  that 
these  views  are  at  variance  with  the  senti- 
ments of  Calvinistic  writers.  The  5th  chap- 
ter of  Romans  has  been  universally  consider- 
ed as  teaching  this  doctrine.  President  Ed- 
wards says:  "As  this  place,  in  general,  is 
very  full  and  plain,  so  the  doctrine  of  the 
corruption  of  nature,  derived  from  Adam, 
and  also  the  imputation  of  his  first  sin,  are 
both  clearly  taught  in  it.  The  imputation  of 
Adam's  one  transgression,  is,  indeed,  most 
directly  and  frequently  asserted.  We  are 
here  assured  that  by  one  man's  sin,  death 
passed  upon  all ;  all  being  adjudged  to  this 
punishment,  as  having  sinned  (so  it  is  im- 
plied) in  that  one  man's  sin.  And  it  is  re- 
peated over  and  over,  that  all  are  condemned, 
many  are  dead,  many  made  sinners,  c^-c,  by 


VIEWS  OF  MR.  BAENES.  61 

one  mail's  offence,  by  the  disobedience  of 

ONE,  and  by  one  off'ence.^^ "  Though 

the  word  impute  is  not  used  with  respect  to 
Adam's  sin,  yet  it  is  said,  all  have  sinned; 
which,  respecting  infants,  can  be  true  only  of 
their  sinning  by  this  sin.  And  it  is  said,  by 
his  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners; 
and  judgment  came  upon  all  by  that  sin; 
and  that  by  this  means,  death  (the  wages  of 
sin)  passed  on  all  men,  &c.,  which  phrases 
amount  to  full  and  precise  explanations  of  the 
word  impute;  and,  therefore,  do  more  cer- 
tainly determine  the  point  really  insisted  on." 
— Edwards  on  Original  Sin,  vol.  2,  pp.  512, 
517. 

Mr.  Barnes. — "  It  is  not  denied  that  this 
[my]  language  varies  from  the  statements 
which  are  often  made  on  the  subject,  and 
from  the  opinion  which  has  been  entertained 
by  many  men.  And  it  is  admitted  that  it 
does  not  accord  with  that  used  on  the  same 
subject  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  in 
other  standards  of  doctrine.  The  main  dif- 
ference is,  that  it  is  difficult  to  affix  any  clear 
and  definite  meaning  to  the  expression  "  we 
sinned  in  him  and  fell  with  him."  It  is  mani- 
fest, so  far  as  it  is  capable  of  interpretation, 
that  it  is  intended  to  convey  the  idea,  not  that 
the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  to  us,  or  set  over 
to  our  account ;  but  that  there  was  a  per- 
sonal identity  constituted  between  Adam 
and  his  posterity,  so  that  it  was  really  our 
act,  and  ours  only,  after  all,  that  is  charge- 
able on  us.    This  was  the  idea  of  Edwards. 


62  COVENANT  WITH  ADA3I. 

The  notion  o/" imputing  sin  is  an  invention 
of  modern  times;  and  it  is  not,  it  is  believed, 
thedoctrineof  the  Confession  of  Faith. ^'  .  .  . 
"Christianity  affirms  the  fact,  that,  in  connex- 
ion with  the  sin  of  Adam,  or  as  a  result,  all 
moral  agents  in  this  world  will  sin,  and  sin- 
ning, will  die. — Rom.  v.  12 — 19.  It  does  not 
affirm,  however,  any  thing  about  the  mode 
in  which  this  would  be  done.  There  are 
many  ways,  conceivable,  in  which  that  sin 
might  secure  the  result,  as  there  are  many 
ways  in  which  all  similar  facts  may  be  ex- 
plained. The  drunkard  commonly  secures, 
as  a  result,  the  fact,  that  his  family  will  be 
beggared,  illiterate,  perhaps  profane  or  intem- 
perate. Both  facts  are  evidently  to  be  ex- 
plained on  the  same  principle  as  a  part  of 
moral  government." — Note  to  his  sermon  on 
the  Way  of  Salvation. 

Querist. — Are  these  the  views  of  the  other 
gentlemen  present? 

Mr.  Duffield. — "  If  by  [the  union  of  repre- 
sentation] is  meant  nothing  more  than  that 
Adam  did  not  act  exclusively  for  himself; 
but  that  his  conduct  was  to  determine  the 
character  and  conduct  of  those  that  should 
come  after  him,  we  will  not  object.  But  if 
it  is  meant  to  designate  any  positive  proce- 
dure of  God,  in  which  he  made  Adam  to 
stand,  and  required  him  to  act,  as  the  substi- 
tute of  the  persons  of  his  offspring,  numeri- 
cally considered,  and  by  name,  head  for  head, 
so  that  they  might  be  held,  as  in  commercial 
transactions,  personally  liable  for  this  sin,  as 


VIEWS  OF  MR.  DUFFIELD.  63 

being  guilty  copartners  with  him  in  it,  we 
certainly  may  require  other  and  better  proof 
than  what  is  commonly  submitted.'' — Duf- 
field  on  Regeneration,  p.  391. 

Querist. — I  know  of  no  one  who  holds  the 
doctrine  precisely  as  you  have  stated  it — but 
let  me  inquire  whether  you  believe  there 
existed  any  legal  union  between  Adam  and 
his  posterity  on  account  of  his  being  their 
covenant  head;  and,  that  the  guilt  of  his  first 
sin  was  imputed  to  them,  or  set  over  in  law 
to  their  account,  so  that  they  were  thereby 
subjected  to  joena/ evils? 

Mr.  Duffield. — "  When  it  is  said,  in  the  se- 
cond commandment,  that  God  visits  the  ini- 
quities of  the  fathers  upon  the  children,  unto 
the  third  and  fourth  generations,"  will  it  be 
contended  that  this  is  because  the  former 
stood  as  the  representatives  of  the  latter, 
acting  legally,  in  their  name,  and  for  them? 
We  presume  not.  And  yet  stronger  language 
cannot  be  employed  to  denote  the  results 
which  flov/  from  Adam's  sin,  by  virtue  of  our 
connexion  with  him.  Why,  then,  must  we 
suppose  that  there  is  a  principle  in  the  one 
case  different  from  that  in  the  other  ?  And 
that  what  seems  to  flow  out  of  the  natural 
relation  between  parent  and  children,  and  to 
be  the  natural  consequence  of  such  relation, 
must  be  attributed  to  a  legal  union  ox  moral 
identity  between  Adam  and  his  offspring?" 
^Dufheld  on  Regeneration,  p.  392. 

Querist. — According  to  this  view,  what  be- 
comes of  the  old  doctrine  of  original  sin,  as 


64  IMPUTATION  AND  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

consisting  in  the  corruption  or  depravity  of 
our  nature?  The  doctrines  of  imputation 
and  a  corrupt  nature  have  been  regarded  as 
so  closely  connected,  that  the  denial  of  the 
former  involved  the  rejection  of  the  latter — 
and  the  same  proofs  which  have  been  relied 
upon  to  establish  the  one,  have  generally 
been  adduced  to  defend  the  other.  Thus, 
president  Edwards,  in  the  passage  already 
referred  to,  says:  "  And  the  doctrine  of  origi- 
nal depravity  is  also  here  taught,  [i.e.  in  Rom. 
V.  12-21,]  where  the  apostle  says,  by  oneman 
sin  entered  into  the  world;  having  a  plain 
respect  (as  hath  been  shown)  to  that  univer- 
sal corriqjtion  and  wickedness,  as  well  as 
guilt,  which  he  had  before  largely  treated  of." 
Is  original  sin  to  be  given  up;  or  so  modified 
as  to  become  an  entirely  different  doctrine  ? 

Dr.  Beecher. — "  The  Reformers  with  one 
accord,  taught  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  im- 
puted to  all  his  posterity,  and  that  a  corrupt 
nature  descends  from  him  to  every  one  of 
his  posterity^  in  consequence  of  which  infants 
are  unholy,  unfit  for  heaven,  and  justly  ex- 
posed to  future  punishment.  Their  opinion 
seems  to  have  been,  that  the  very  substance 
or  essence  of  the  soul  was  depraved,  and  that 
the  moral  contamination  extended  alike  to 
all  its  powers  and  faculties,  insomuch  that 
sin  became  a  property  of  every  man's  nature, 
and  was  propagated  as  really  as  flesh  and 
blood.".  .  .  "  Our  Puritan  fathers  adhered 
to  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  as  consisting 
in  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  and  in  a 


VIEWS  OF  DR.  BEECHER.  65 

hereditary  depravity ;  and  this  continued  to 
be  the  received  doctrine  of  the  churches  of 
New  England  until  after  the  time  of  Edwards. 
He  adopted  the  views  of  the  Reformers  ou 
the  subject  of  original  sin,  as  consisting  in  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  and  a  depraved 
7\ature^  transmitted  by  descent.  But  after 
him  this  mode  of  stating  the  subject  was  gra- 
dually changed,  mitil  long  since,  the  prevail- 
ing doctrine  in  New  England  has  been,  that 
men  are  not  guilty  of  Jidain's  sin,  and  that 
depravity  is  not  of  the  substance  of  the  soul, 
nor  an  inherent  or  physical  quality,  but  is 
ivholly  voluntary,  and  consists  in  a  trans- 
gression of  the  law,  in  such  circumstances 
as  constitute  account ahility  and  desert  of 
pimishment." — Dr.  Beecher's  Controversy 
with  the  editor  of  the  Christian  Examiner  in 
the  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrim.s,  in  1828,  as  quoted 
in  the  Biblical  Repertory.* 

Querist. — Am  1  to  understand  by  these  re- 
marks, that  the  doctrine  of  a  sinful  or  cor- 
rupt nature,  has  been  abandoned? 

Dr.  Beecher. — "  Neither  a  holy  nor  a  de- 
praved nature  are  possible  without  under- 
standing, conscience,  and  choice.  To  say  of 
an  accountable  creature,  that  he  is  depraved 

*  Since  writing  this  chapter,  I  have  seen  the  number 
of  the  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,  in  which  the  above  is  fomid, 
■with  Dr.  Beecher's  own  signature.  In  his  "Views  in  Theo- 
logy," he  appears  to  speak  a  different  language — language 
not  easily  reconciled  with  the  above  quotation.  Bat  as  he 
does  not  profess  to  have  changed  his  sentiments,  the  pre- 
ceding must  be  regarded  as  expressing  his  opinions. 

6 


bb         DEPRAVITY — VIEWS  OF  DR.  BEECHER. 

by  nature,  is  only  to  say  that  rendered  capa- 
ble by  his  Maker  of  obedience,  he  disobeys 
from  the  commencement  of  his  accounta- 
bility/' ....  "A  depraved  nature  can  no 
more  exist  without  voluntary  agency  and 
accountability,  than  a  material   nature  can 

exist  without  solidity  and  extension. '^ 

"  If,  therefore,  man  is  depraved  by  nature,  it 
is  a  voluntary  and  accountable  nature  which 
is  depraved,  exercised  in  disobedience  to  the 
law  of  God.''  .  .  .  .  "  Native  depravity,  then, 
is  a  state  of  the  affections,  in  a  voluntary 
accountable  creature,  at  variance  with  divine 
requirement,  from  the  beginning  of  accounta- 
bility."— Sermon  on  the  Native  Character  of 
Man. 

Mr.  Finney. — "All  depravity  [is]  volun- 
tary — consisting  in  voluntary  transgression. 
[It  is]  the  sinnner's  own  act.  Something  of 
his  own  creation.  That  over  which  he  has 
a  perfect  control,  and  for  which  he  is  entirely 
responsible.  0 !  the  darkness  and  confusion, 
and  utter  nonsense  of  that  view  of  depravity 
which  exhibits  it,  as  something  lying  back, 
and  the  cause  of  all  actual  transgression." — 
Sermons  on  Important  Subjects,  p.  139. 

Querist. — Does  all  sin,  then,  consist  in  ac^^.? 

Professor  Fitch. — "  Sin,  in  every  form  and 
instance,  is  reducible  to  the  act  of  a  moral 
agent,  in  which  he  violates  a  known  rule  of 
duty." — Discourses  on  the  Nature  of  Sin. 

Querist. — By  parity  of  reasoning,  all  holi- 
ness must  likewise  consist  in  acts. 

Mr.  Finney. — "All  holiness  in  God,  angels, 


VIEWS  OF  MR.  FINNEY  AND  DUFFIELD.        67 

or  men,  must  be  voluntary  or  it  is  not  holi- 
ness." ....  "When  Adam  was  first  created, 
and  awoke  into  being,  before  he  had  obeyed 
or  disobeyed  his  Maker,  he  conld  have  had 
no  moral  character  at  all ;  he  had  exercised 
no  affections,  no  desires,  nor  put  forth  any 
actions.  In  this  state  he  was  a  complete 
moral  agent ;  and  in  this  respect  in  the  image 
of  his  Maker :  but  as  yet  he  could  have  had 
no  moral  character;  for  moral  character  can- 
not be  a  subject  of  creation,  but  attaches  to 
voluntary  actions.^^ — Sermons  on  Important 
Subjects,  pp.  7,  10,  II. 

Querist. — If  these  views  are  correct,  what 
must  be  said  concerning  infants?  Are  they 
neither  sinful  nor  holy? 

Mr.  DufReld. — "  It  is  a  question  alike  per- 
tinent and  important  whether  in  the  incipient 
period  of  infancy  and  childhood  there  caji  be 
any  moral  character  whatever  possessed. 
Moral  character  is  character  acquired  by 
acts  of  a  moral  nature.  Moral  acts  are  those 
acts  which  are  contemplated  by  the  law,  pre- 
scribing the  rule  of  human  conduct." 

"  It  is  obvious  that  in  infancy  and  incipient 
childhood,  when  none  of  the  actions  are  de- 
liberate, or  the  result  of  motive,  operating  in 
connexion  wUh  the  knowledge  of  law,  and 
of  the  great  end  of  all  human  actions,  no 
moral  character  can  appropriately  be  predi- 
cated." .  .  .  .  "  Properly  speaking,  therefore, 
we  can  predicate  of  it  neither  sin  nor  holi- 
ness, personally  considered." — Duffield  on 
Regeneration,  pp.  377,  378,  379. 


68  CHARACTER  OF  INFANTS. 

Querist. — Was  not  Jesus  Christ  holy  from 
his  birth? 

Mr.  Duffield. — "  Things  inanimate  have,  in 
scriptural  parlance,  sometimes,  been  called 
holy^  as  the  inmost  chamber  of  the  temple 
was  called  the  holy  of  holies;  but  then  it  was 
because  of  some  especial  and  peculiar  rela- 
tionship which  it  had  to  God.  He  dwelt  in 
it.  It  was  set  apart  as  pre-eminently  and 
exclusively  appropriate  to  God.  In  this  sense 
the  yet  unconscious  human  nature  of  Christ 
may  be  denominated  holy,  for  it  was  the 
habitation  of  God,  and  singularly  and  exclu- 
sively appropriate  to  him,  differing  in  this 
respect  essentially  and  entirely  from  that  of 
any  of  the  descendants  of  Adam." — Duffield 
on  Regeneration,  p.  353. 

Querist. — If  infants  are  not  sinful  before 
they  arrive  at  moral  agency,  and  have  no 
legal  or  covenant  connexion  with  Adam  as 
their  representative,  how  can  you  account  for 
their  death  ? 

Mr.  Duffield. — "There  is  no  manner  of 
necessity,  in  order  to  account  for  the  death 
of  infants,  to  suppose  that  the  sin  of  Adam 
became  their  personal  sin,  either  in  respect 
of  its  act,  or  its  ill  desert.  Their  death 
eventuates  according  to  that  law  of  depend- 
ence, which  marks  the  whole  government  of 
God  in  this  world,  by  virtue  of  which  the 
consequences  of  the  act  of  one  man  terminate 
oft-times  on  the  person  of  another,  when 
there  is  not  the  union  of  representation." 
Work  on  Regeneration,  p.  3S9. 


HOW  DEPRAVITY  COMMENCES.  69 

Professor  Goodrich,  of  New  Haven. — "  In- 
fants die.  The  answer  has  been  given  a 
thousand  times;  brntes  die  also.  But, .... 
"  animals  are  not  subjects  of  the  moral  gov- 
ernment of  God.  Neither  are  infants  pre- 
vious to  moral  agency ;  for  what  has  moral 
government  to  do  with  those  who  are  not 
moral  agents?" "Animals,  and  in- 
fants previous  to  moral  agency  do,  therefore, 
stand  on  precisely  the  same  ground  in  refer- 
ence to  this  subject.  Suffering  and  death 
afford  no  more  evidence  of  sin  in  the  one 
case  than  in  the  other." — Christian  Spectator, 
1829,  p.  373 — attributed  to  Professor  Good- 
rich. 

Querist. — If  infants  do  not  possess  a  cor- 
rupt nature,  please  to  inform  me  by  what 
process  they  become  sinful — and  how  it  hap- 
pens that  not  one  of  the  human  family  born 
in  the  ordinary  way  has  ever  escaped  this 
catastrophe. 

Professor  Goodrich. — "  A  child  enters  the 
world  with  a  variety  of  appetites  and  desires, 
which  are  generally  acknowledged  to  be 
neither  sinful  nor  holy.  Committed  in  a 
state  of  utter  helplessness,  to  the  assiduity  of 
parental  fondness,  it  commences  existence, 
the  object  of  unceasing  care,  watchfulness 
and  concession  to  those  around  him.  Under 
such  circumstances  it  is  that  the  natural  ap- 
petites are  first  developed, and  each  advancing 
month  brings  them  new  objects  of  gratifica- 
tion. The  obvious  consequence  is,  that  self 
indulgence  becomes  the  master  principle  in 


70  HOW  DEPRAVITY  COMMENCES. 

the  soul  of  every  child,  long  before  it  can  un- 
derstand that  this  self  indulgence  will  inter- 
fere with  the  rights  or  intrench  on  the  happi- 
ness of  others.  Thus,  by  repetition,  is  the 
force  of  constitutional  propensities  accumu- 
lating a  bias  towards  self-gratification,  which 
becomes  incredibly  strong  before  a  knowledge 
of  duty  or  a  sense  of  right  and  wrong  can 
possibly  have  entered  the  mind.  That  mo- 
ment— the  commencement  of  moral  agency, 

at  length  arrives." "Why  then  is 

it  so  necessary  to  suppose  some  distinct  evil 
propensity — some  fountain  of  iniquity  in  the 
breast  of  the  child  previous  to  moral  action  ?" 

"  But  let  us  look  at  facts.     Angels 

sinned.  Was  the  cause  which  led  to  their 
first  act  of  rebellion,  in  itself  sinful  ?  Eve 
was  tempted  and  fell.  Was  her  natural  ap- 
petite for  food,  or  her  desire  for  knowledge — 
to  which  the  temptation  was  addressed — a 
sinful  feeling  ?  And  why  may  not  our  con- 
stitutional propensities  now,  lead  to  the  same 
result  at  the  commencement  of  moral  agency, 
as  was  actually  exhibited  in  fallen  angels  and 
our  first  parents,  even  when  advanced  in 
holiness !''  ....  "  Did  not  vehement  desire 
produce  sin  in  Adam's  first  act  of  transgres- 
sion ?  Was  there  any  previous  principle  of 
depravity  in  him  ?  Why  then  may  not  strong 
constitutional  desires  be  followed  now  by  a 
choice  of  their  objects  as  well  as  in  the  case 
of  Adam?" — Christian  Spectator,  1829,  pp. 
366,  367,368. 

Mr.  Duifield. — The  infant  "is  placed  in  a 


VIEWS  OF  GOODRICH  AND  DUFFIELD.  71 

rebellious  world,  subject  to  tbe  influence  of 
ignorance,  with  very  limited  and  imperfect  ex- 
perience, and  liable  to  the  strong  impulses  of 
appetite  and  passion/'  .  .  .  .  "  Instinct,  ani- 
mal sensation,  constitutional  susceptibilities 
create  an  impulse,  which  not  being  counter- 
acted by  moral  considerations  or  gracious  in- 
fluence, lead  the  will  in  a  wrong  direction  and 
to  wrong  objects.  It  was  thus  that  sin  was  in- 
duced in  our  holy  progenitors.  No  one  can 
plead  in  Eve  an  efficient  cause  of  sin  resident 
in  her  nature  (any  prava  vis)  or  operative 
power,  sinful  in  itself,  anterior  to  and  apart 
from  her  own  voluntary  acts.  And  if  she 
was  led  into  sin  though  characteristically 
holy,  and  destitute  of  any  innate  propensity 
to  sin,  where  is  the  necessity  for  supposing 
that  the  sins  of  her  progeny  are  to  be  referred 
to  such  a  cause?" "Tempta- 
tion alone  is  sufficient  under  present  circum- 
stances."— Work  on  Regeneration,  pp.  310, 
379,  3S0. 

Mr.  Finney. — "  If  it  be  asked  how  it  hap- 
pens that  children  universally  adopt  the  prin- 
ciple of  selfishness,  unless  their  nature  is  sin- 
ful ?  I  answer,  that  they  adopt  the  principle 
of  self-gratification  or  selfishness,  because 
they  possess  human  nature,  and  come  into 
being  under  the  peculiar  circumstances  in 
which  all  the  children  of  Adam  are  born  since 
the  fall;  but  not  because  human  nature  is 
itself  sinful.  The  cause  of  their  becoming 
sinners  is  to  be  found  in  their  nature's  being 
what  it  is,  and  surrounded  by  the  peculiar 


72  now  DEPRAVITY  COMMENCES. 

circumstances  of  temptation  to  which  they 

are  exposed  in  a  world  of  sinners." 

"  Adam  was  created  in  the  perfection  oi  man- 
hood, certainly  not  with  a  sinful  nature,  and 
yet  an  appeal  to  his  innocent,  constitutional 
appetites  led  him  into  sin.  If  adult  Adam, 
without  a  sinful  nature,  and  after  a  season  of 
obedience  and  perfect  holiness,  was  led  to 
change  his  mind  by  an  appeal  to  his  inno- 
cent, constitutional  propensities,  how  can  the 
fact  ih^l  infants  possessing  the  same  nature 
with  Adam,  and  surrounded  by  circumstan- 
ces of  still  greater  temptation,  universally  fall 
into  sin,  prove  that  their  nature  is  itself  s\n- 
ful?  Is  such  an  inference  called  for?  Is 
it  legitimate?  What,  holy  and  adult  Adam 
is  led,  by  an  appeal  to  his  innocent  constitu- 
tion, to  adopt  the  principle  of  selfishness,  and 
no  suspicion  is  or  can  be  entertained,  that  he 
had  a  sinful  nature;  but  if  little  children  un- 
der circumstances  of  temptation,  aggravated 
by  the  fall,  are  led  into  sin,  we  are  to  believe 
that  their  nature  is  sinful !  This  is  wonder- 
ful philosophy!" — Sermons  on  Important 
Subjects,  p.  157. 

Dr.  Taylor. — "  If  no  being  can  sin  without 
a  constitutional  propensity  to  sin,  how  came 
Adam  to  sin?  If  one  being,  as  Adam,  can 
sin,  and  did  in  fact  sin,  without  such  a  pro- 
pensity to  sin,  why  may  not  others?" — Spirit 
of  the  Pilgrims,  vol.  6,  p.  13,  as  quoted  by 
Dow. 

Querist. — Do  you  accord.  Dr.  Taylor,  with 
the  sentiment  just  expressed  by  Mr.  Finney, 


VIEWS  OF  DR.  TAYLOR.  73 

that  "  infants  possess  the  same  nature  with 
tddanV^  at  his  creation? 

Dr.  Taylor. — "  Mankind  come  into  the 
world  with  the  same  nature  in  kind  as  that 
with  which  Adam  was  created.'^ — Ibid.  vol. 
6,  p.  5. 

Querist. — What  influence  then  has  the  fall 
exerted  on  the  posterity  of  Adam? 

Dr.  Taylor. — "  I  answer,  that  it  may  have 
been  to  change  their  nature,  not  in  kind,  but 
degree." — Ibid.  vol.  6,  p.  12. 

Querist. — On  the  supposition  that  the  na- 
ture of  Adam  and  that  of  his  posterity  were 
alike  in  kind,  why  did  not  he  sin,  as  soon  as 
he  commenced  his  moral  existence  ? 

Dr.  Taylor. — "  I  answer,  that  the  reason 
may  have  been,  that  his  nature  differed,  not 
in  kind,  but  in  degree  from  that  of  his  pos- 
terity.''—Ibid. 

Querist. — On  this  principle,  in  what  respect 
did  the  human  nature  of  Christ  differ  from 
that  of  other  children  ? — and  if  he  possessed 
in  his  human  nature,  what  other  children 
possess,  why  did  he  not  exhibit  the  same 
moral  character  ? 

Dr.  Taylor. — "  I  might  answer  as  before, 
that  his  human  nature  may  have  diflered 
from  that  of  other  children  not  in  kind,  but 
degree,''^ — Ibid. 

We  have  given  the  preceding  quotations 
at  considerable  length,  that  those  readers 
who  may  not  have  attended  to  the  contro- 
versy, may  perceive  from  their  own  state- 
ments, its  various  bearings  and  tendencies; 
7 


74  VIEWS  OF  PELAGIUS. 

and  how  far  those  have  gone  who  have  been 
bold  enough  to  follow  out  their  principles  to 
their  legitimate  and  full  results.  We  do  not 
attribute  to  all  whose  names  we  have  intro- 
duced, every  sentiment  which  has  been  ad- 
vanced by  some  of  them — but  it  cannot  fail, 
we  think,  to  strike  the  mind  of  the  reader 
that  there  is  such  an  affinity  between  the 
several  parts  of  the  series,  that  the  man  who 
adopts  one  of  the  doctrines  in  this  category, 
will  be  in  great  danger  of  ultimately  embrac- 
ing the  whole.  They  all  belong  to  the  same 
system;  and  ought  therefore  to  be  introduced 
in  stating  the  distinguishing  features  of  the 
New  Theology;  though  many  who  adhere 
to  the  system  in  part,  do  not  go  to  the  ne 
plus  ultra  of  the  scheme,  as  it  is  here  exhib- 
ited. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

REMARKS  ON  IMPUTATION,  ORIGINAL  SIN,  &C.,  WITH  REFER- 
ENCE TO  THE  VIEWS  PRESENTED  IN  THE  PRECEDING  CHAP- 
TER. 

The  controversy  respecting  our  connexion 
with  Adam,  and  the  influence  produced  upon 
\is  by  the  fall,  commenced  early  in  the  fifth 
century,  when  Pelagius,  a  British  monk, 
published  opinions  at  variance  with  the  com- 
mon doctrines  of  the  church.  He  and  his 
followers  entertained  substantially  the  same 


VIEWS  OP  PELAGIUS.  75 

views  which  have  been  exhibited  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapter;  though  they  adopted  a  me- 
thod somewhat  different  to  account  for  the 
commission  of  sin  by  httle  children,  and  went 
farther  in  their  views  concerning  the  influ- 
ence of  Adam's  .sin  upon  his  descendants. 
They  maintained  that  "the  sin  of  Adam 
injured  himself  alone,  and  did  not  affect  his 
posterity;"  and  that  we  sin  only  by  "imita- 
tion.'' But  their  sentiments  concerning  the 
nature  of  sin,  original  sin,  and  imputation, 
were  the  same  with  those  which  distinguish 
the  New  Theology. 

Concerning  the  first,  Pelagius  says,  "  And 
here,  in  my  opinion,  the  first  inquiry  ought 
to  be.  What  is  sin?  Is  it  a  substance,  or  is 
it  a  mere  name  devoid  of  substance ;  not  a 
thing,  not  an  existence,  not  a  body,  nor  any 
thing  else  (which  has  a  separate  existence) 
but  an  act ;  and  if  this  is  its  nature,  as  I  be- 
lieve it  is,  how  could  that  which  is  devoid  of 
substance  debihtate  or  change  human  na- 
ture?"   "Every  thing,  good  or  evil, 

praiseworthy  or  censurable,  which  we  pos- 
sess, did  not  originate  with  us,  but  is  done  by 
us;  for  we  are  born  capable  both  of  good 
and  evil,  but  not  in  possession  of  these  quali- 
ties; for  in  our  birth  we  are  equally  destitute 
of  virtue  and  vice  ;  and  previously  to  moral 
agency,  there  is  nothing  in  m.an  but  that 
which  God  created  in  him." — Biblical  Re- 
pertory. 

This  question  concerning  the  nature  of  sin 
was  regarded  as  decisive  concerning  the  other 


76  NATUKE  OF  SIN. 

two;  and  it  was  introduced  byPelagius  with 
that  view.  Says  he, "  It  is  disputed  concern- 
ing this,  whether  our  nature  is  debilitated 
and  deteriorated  by  sin.  And  here,  in  my 
opinion,  the  first  inquiry  ought  to  be  what  is 
sin?'^  &c.  So  it  is  regarded  at  the  present 
time.  Says  Mr.  Finney,  "  In  order  to  admit 
the  sinfuhiess  of  nature,  we  must  beheve  sin 
to  consist  in  the  substance  of  the  constitution, 
instead  of  vokmtary  action,  which  is  a  thing 
impossible." — Sermons  on  Important  Sub- 
jects, p.  158. 

Mr.  Duffield,  after  stating  several  things 
which  he  supposes  may  be  meant  by  the 
phrase  original  sin,  gives  as  the  views  of  the 
Westminster  divines,  that  it  denotes  "  some- 
thing which  has  the  power  to  originate  sin, 
and  which  is  necessarily  involved  in  our 
very  being,  from  the  first  moment  of  its  origi- 
nation." This  he  intimates  was  intended  by 
the  expression  in  our  catechism,  "the  cor- 
ruption of  our  whole  nature."  He  then  says, 
(after  some  preliminaries)  "  It  is  strange  that 
ever  it  should  have  been  made  a  question, 
whether  sin  may  be  predicated  of  being  or 
simple  existence,  since  sin  is  undeniably  an 
act  of  a  moral  character,  and  therefore  can 
only  be  committed  by  one  who  is  possessed 
of  moral  powers,  i.  e.  one  who  is  capable  of 
acting  according  as  the  law  requires  or  pro- 
hibits."   "  Holiness,  or  sin  which  is  its 

opposite,  has  a  direct  and  immediate  refer- 
ence to  those  voluntary  acts  and  exercises, 
which  the  law  is  designed  to  secure  or  pre- 


VIEWS  OF  PELAGIUS,  ETC.  77 

vent."  .  .  .  .  "  How  very  absurd,  therefore, 
is  it  to  predicate  sin  of  that  which  does  not 
fall  under  cognizance  of  law  at  aU  !'^  Though 
he  uses  the  phrase  "  being  or  simple  exist- 
ence/' as  that  concerning  which  it  is  absurd 
to  predicate  sin,  he  refers  unquestionably  to 
the  expression  in  the  catechism  which  he  had 
just  quoted,  and  upon  which  he  was  remark- 
ing, viz.  "the  corruption  of  our  whole  nature." 
It  is  absurd  therefore,  according  to  him,  to 
speak  of  our  having  a  corrupt  nature,  since, 
as  he  maintains,  all  sin  consists  in  voluntary 
acts  of  a  moral  agent,  in  violation  of  a  known 
law.  Hence  the  imputation  of  Adam's  first 
sin  to  his  posterity,  and  original  sin,  are 
rejected  as  unphilosophical  and  absurd. 

Says  Pelagius,  "  When  it  is  declared  that 
all  have  sinned  in  Adam,  it  should  not  be 
understood  of  any  original  sin  contracted 
by  their  birth,  but  of  imitation."  .... 
"  How  can  a  man  be  considered  guilty  by 
God  of  that  sin  which  he  knows  not  to  be 
his  own  ?  for  if  it  is  necessary,  it  is  not  his 
own;  but  if  it  is  his  own,  it  is  voluntary;  and 
if  voluntary,  it  can  be  avoided." 

Julian,  one  of  the  disciples  of  Pelagius, 
says,  "  Whoever  is  accused  of  a  crime,  the 
charge  is  made  against  his  conduct,  and  not 
against  his  birth."  ....  "Therefore  we 
conclude  that  the  triune  God  should  be  adored 
as  most  just;  and  it  has  been  made  to  appear 
most  irrefragably,  that  the  sin  of  another 
never  can  be  imputed  by  him  to  little  chil- 
dren.^' .  .  .  .  "  Hence  that  is  evident  which 


78  PELAGIANISM  CONDEMNED. 

we  defend  as  most  reasonable,  that  no  one  is 
born  in  sin,  and  that  God  never  judges  men 
to  be  guihy  on  account  of  their  birth. '^  .... 
"  Children,  inasmuch  as  they  are  children, 
never  can  be  guilty,  until  they  have  done 
something  by  their  own  proper  will." — Bibli- 
cal Repertory. 

How  striking  is  the  resemblance  between 
these  views  and  the  following  remarks  of 
Mr.  Barnes:  "When  Paul,"  says  he,  "states 
a  simple  fact^  men  often  advance  a  theory. 
.  .  .  .  A  melancholy  instance  of  this  we 
have  in  the  account  which  the  apostle  gives, 
(ch.  5.)  about  the  effect  of  the  sin  of  Adam. 
....  They  have  sought  for  a  theory  to  ac- 
count for  it.  And  many  suppose  they  have 
found  it  in  the  doctrine  that  the  sin  of  Adam 
is  imputed,  or  set  over  by  an  arbitrary  ar- 
rangement to  beings  otherwise  innocent,  and 
that  they  are  held  to  be  responsible  for  a 
deed  committed  by  a  man  thousands  of  years 
before  they  were  born.  This  is  the  theory; 
and  men  insensibly  forget  that  it  is  mere 
theory. ''"'  ....  "I  understand  it,  therefore, 
[Rom.  v.  12,]  as  referring  to  the  fact  that 
men  sin  in  their  own  persons,  sin  in  them- 
selves— as  indeed  how  can  they  sin  in  any 
other  way?" — Notes  on  the  Romans, pp.  10, 
117. 

We  admit  that  this  coincidence  between 
the  New  School  doctrines  and  Pelagianism, 
does  not  afford  certain  proof  of  their  being 
untrue.  It  is  however  a  sixox\^ presumptive 
evidence,  since  Pelagianism  has  been  reject- 


DOCTRINE  OF  OUR  STANDARDS.  79 

ed  as  heretical  by  every  Evangelical  Church 
in  Christendom. 

Ca3lestius,  a  disciple  of  Pelagius,  is  said  to 
have  been  more  zealous  and  successful  in  the 
propagation  of  these  errors  than  his  master. 
Hence,  in  early  .limes,  they  were  perhaps 
associated  with  his  name,  more  than  with 
that  of  Pelagius.  Among  other  councils  who 
condemned  his  heresy,  was  the  council  of 
Ephesus,  A.  D.  431;  who  "denominated  it 
the  wicked  doctrine  of  Coelestius." — Biblical 
Repertory. 

In  a  number  of  the  Confessions  of  Faith 
adopted  by  different  churches  after  the  Refor- 
mation, Pelagianism  is  mentioned  by  name. 
Thus,  in  one  of  the  Articles  of  the  Episcopal 
Church,  it  is  said,  "  Original  sin  standeth  not 
in  the  following  of  Adam  (as  the  Pelagians 
do  vainly  talk,)  but  it  is  the  fault  and  corrup- 
tion of  the  nature  of  every  man,  that  natur- 
ally is  engendered  of  the  offspring  oi  Adam, 
whereby  man  is  very  far  gone  from  original 
righteousness,  and  is  of  his  own  nature  in- 
clined to  evil." 

Though  in  the  Westminster  Confession, 
this  heresy  is  not  expressly  named,  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  the  framers  intended  to  re- 
ject and  condemn  it.  Compare  the  preced- 
ing doctrines  of  Pelagius  and  his  followers 
with  our  quotations  from  the  Confession  of 
Faith  in  chap.  iii. ;  also  the  following  from  the 
Larger  Catechism:  "  The  sinfulness  of  that 
estate  whereinto  man  fell,  consisteth  in  the 
guilt  of  Adam^s  first  sin,  the  want  of  that 


80  ALL  SIN  DOES  NOT  CONSIST  IN  ACTS. 

righteousness  wherein  he  was  created,  and 
the  corruption  of  his  nature,  whereby  he  is 
utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  oppo- 
site unto  all  that  is  spiritually  good,  and 
wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  and  that  continu- 
ally: which  is  commonly  called  original  sin, 
and  from  which  do  proceed  all  actual  trans- 
gressions/' 

We  have  said  that  the  denial  of  the  doc- 
trine of  imputation  and  original  sin,  arises  in 
part  from  the  adoption  of  the  theory  that  all  sin 
consists  in  acts.  Upon  this  point,  therefore, 
it  will  be  pertinent  to  make  a  few  remarks. 

1.  Holiness  and  sin  are  predicated  of  the 
heart.  Thus  the  Bible  speaks  of  an  honest 
and  good  heart,  a  broken  heart,  a  clean  heart, 
an  evil  heart,  a  hard  heart,  &c.,  which  convey 
the  idea  that  there  is  something  in  man  of  a 
moral  character,  prior  to  his  acts — something 
which  forms  the  basis  from  which  his  good 
and  evil  actions  proceed ;  and  which  deter- 
mines the  character  of  those  actions.  Hence 
holiness  and  sin  do  not  consist  wholly  in  acts, 
but  belong  to  our  nature. 

2.  We  are  said  to  be  conceived  and  born 
in  sin — and  if  so,  we  must  be  sinful  by  na- 
ture; for  we  have  not  then  put  forth  any 
moral  acts. 

3.  We  are  declared  to  be  by  nature  the 
children  of  wrath — and  if  children  of  wrath 
by  nature,  then  we  must  be  by  nature,  sin- 
ners, for  sin  alone  exposes  to  wrath.  All  sin 
therefore  cannot  consist  in  acts. 

4.  Adam  was  created  in  the  image  of  God 


IMAGE  OF  GOD.  81 

— which  according  to  onr  standards,  consist- 
ed in  "  knowledge,  righteousness,  and  holi- 
ness." By  the  fall  this  image  was  lost.  In 
regard  to  spiritual  things  we  became  ignor- 
ant.— "•'  The  natural  man  discerneth  not  the 
things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,"  &.c.  Our  moral 
characters  became  corrupt  and  wicked.  In 
other  words,  we  forfeited  our  original  right- 
eousness and  became  prone  to  evil.  By  re- 
generation this  image  is  restored.  Col.  iii. 
10:  "  And  have  put  on  the  new  man  which 
is  renewed  in  knowledge  after  the  image  of 
Him  that  created  him."  Eph.  iv.  24  :  "  And 
that  ye  put  on  the  new  man,  which  after 
God  is  created  in  righteousness  and  true  ho- 
liness.''^ These  texts  are  decisive  as  to  what 
the  image  of  God  consisted  in,  viz.  "know- 
ledge, righteousness  and  true  holiness."  Yet 
in  this  image  man  was  created;  and  of  course 
possessed  it  before  he  put  forth  moral  acts. 
Consequently  all  holiness  and  sin  do  not  con- 
sist in  acts,  but  may  be  predicated  of  our 
nature. 

The  manner  in  which  this  argument  has 
been  disposed  of,  is  truly  singular.  On  the 
principle  that  all  holiness  consists  in  acts,  it 
cannot  be  created.  This  the  advocates  of  the 
New  Theology  admit.  Since  then,  Adam 
was  created  in  the  image  of  God,  a  new  theo- 
ry must  be  devised  as  to  what  that  image 
was.  In  this,  however,  there  is  not  a  per- 
fect agreement.  According  to  Mr.  Finney, 
it  consisted  in  moral  agency.  "  In  this  state, 
says  he,  [i.  e.  when  Adam  was  first  created,] 


82  IMAGE  OF  GOD. 

he  was  a  com,plete  moral  agents  and  in  this 
respect  in  the  image  of  his  Maker.^^ — Ser- 
mons on  Important  Subjects,  p.  11.  Mr. 
Duffield  makes  it  consist  principally  in  some 
imaginary  resemblance  to  the  Trinity.  "There 
is,  however,''  says  he,  "  one  important  res- 
pect in  which  this  resemblance  in  man  to 
God  may  be  seen,  which,  indeed,  is  generally 
overlooked,  but  which  we  are  disposed  to 
think  is  of  principal  consequence.  It  is  not 
one  person  of  the  Godhead  only  who  is  re- 
presented as  speaking  at  the  formation  of 
man,  but  the  whole  three.  Jehovah,  the 
ever  blessed  Three  in  One,  said,  ^^I^et  us 
make  man  in  our  image" — not  in  the  image 
of  any  one  person,  nor  of  each  distinctly, 
but  of  all  conjointly.  How  admirably  are 
the  distinct  personality  and  essential  unity  of 
the  Godhead  represented  or  imaged  in  man 
possessing  three  distinct  kinds  of  life,  and  yet 
constituting  but  one  moral  being !  In  him  are 
miited  the  vegetable,  the  animal,  and  the 
moral  or  spiritual  life,  each  having  and 
preserving  its  distinct  character,  but  all  com- 
bined in  one  responsible  individual." — Work 
on  Regeneration,  p.  143. 

What  a  pity  it  is  that  the  apostle  Paul  had 
not  become  acquainted  with  this  new  theory 
concerning  the  nature  of  sin  and  holiness! 
He  would  not  then  have  committed  such  a 
mistake  in  describing  the  image  of  God  in 
which  man  was  created,  and  to  which  we  are 
restored  by  divine  grace  ! 

5.  It  will  be  perceived  by  the  preceding  re- 


FUTURE  STATE  OF  INFANTS.  S3 

marks,  that  this  doctrine  involves  also  a  new 
theory  of  regeneration.  This  is  not  denied — 
and  hence  the  sentiments  which  have  long  pre- 
vailed on  this  subject  are  rejected,  and  the 
notion  oi gradual  regeneration  by  moral  sua- 
sio?i,  is  substituted,  in  their  place.  But  as  we 
intend  to  exhibit  this  feature  of  the  New 
Theology  more  at  length  in  a  subsequent 
chapter,  we  will  not  dwell  upon  it  here. 

6.  This  doctrine  places  those  who  die  in 
infancy  in  a  most  unenviable  position.  If  all 
sin  and  holiness  consist  in  the  voluntary  acts 
of  a  moral  agent,  infants,  before  arriving  at 
moral  agency,  have  no  moral  character;  but 
stand  in  respect  to  moral  government,  on  the 
same  level  with  brute  animals.  This  is  the 
New  School  doctrine.  Since,  therefore,  thou- 
sands die  in  infancy,  where  do  they  go?  If 
they  have  no  moral  character,  the  blessings 
of  the  gospel  are  no  more  adapted  to  them, 
than  to  the  brutes.  Hence  if  they  die  before 
they  become  moral  agents,  they  must  either 
be  annihilated,  or  spend  an  eternity  in  some 
unknown  and  inconceivable  state  of  existence 
— neither  in  heaven  nor  hell,  but  possibly 
between  the  two — in  some  limbus  infantum, 
similar,  perhaps,  to  that  of  the  pa^pists;  yet 
with  this  advantage  in  favour  of  the  latter, 
that  their  infants,  possessing  moral  character, 
may  be  renewed  and  saved.  What  a  com- 
fortless doctrine  must  this  be  to  parents,  when 
weeping  by  the  cradle  of  expiring  infancy!* 

*  The  manner  in  which  the  advocates  of  the  New  The- 
ology attempt  to  relieve  themselves  from  this  difficulty,  is 


84  SALVATION  OF  INFANTS. 

7.  The  death  of  infants  affords  strong  proof 
of  the  doctrine  of  itnputation  and  original 
sin.  If  there  is  no  /e^a/ connexion  between 
us  and  Adam,  if  his  sin  is  not  imputed  to  ns, 
and  we  are  not  born  with  a  corrupt  nature; 
where  is  ihe  justice  of  inflicting  upon  infants 
who  have  never  committed  actual  transgres- 
sion, a  part  of  the  penaUy  threatened  upon 
Adam  for  his  disobedience? 

8.  The  doctrine  of  imputation  affords  the 
only  evidence  we  can  have  that  those  dying 
in  infancy  are  saved.  If  Adam's  sin  was  not 
imputed  to  them  to  their  condemnation,  how 
can  the  righteousness  of  Christ  be  imputed  to 
them  for  their  justification  ?  Christ  came  to 
"  seek  and  save  that  which  was  lost" — "  to 
save  sinners" — he  saves  no  others.  If,  there- 
fore, they  were  not  lost  in  Adam — if  they 
were  not  made  sinners  by  his  sin — Christ 
did  not  come  to  save  them.  But  he  did 
come  to  save  such.  Says  he,  "Suffer  lit- 
tle children  to  come  unto  me  and  forbid 
them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven." They  are  therefore  sinners — and  as 
they  lost  their  original  righteousness  through 
the  first  Adam,  the  foundation  was  laid  for 
their  restoration  and  salvation  through  the 
second.     On  any  other  principle  there  would 

the  following,  viz.,  that  the  atonement  places  those  who 
die  in  infancy  in  such  circumstances  in  the  next  world, 
as  to  result  in  their  becoming  holy  at  the  commencement 
of  moral  agency.  But  this  supposition  has  no  foundation 
in  Scripture.  Christ  is  never  represented  as  entering  our 
world  to  prevent  men  from  becoming  sinners,  but  to  save 
those  who  were  sinners  already. 


GOSPEL  PLAN  OF  SALVATION,  85 

be  no  hope  in  their  case.   But  here  is  ground 
for  consolation.  In  the  language  of  Dr.  Watts, 

"  A  thousand  new-born  babes  are  dead, 
By  fatal  union  to  their  head : 
But  whilst  our  spirits,  filled  with  awe, 
Behold  the  terrors  of  thy  law, 
We  sing  the  honours  of  thy  grace, 
That  sent  to  save  our  ruined  race: 
Adam  the  second,  from  the  dust 
Raises  the  ruins  of  the  first." 

9.  The  doctrine  of  imputation  is  essential 
to  a  correct  view  of  the  plan  of  salvation. 
As  Dr.  Hodge  has  well  expressed  it:  "The 
denial  of  this  doctrine  involves  also  the  denial 
of  the  scriptural  view  of  the  atonement  and 
justification.  It  is  essential  to  the  scriptural 
form  of  these  doctrines  that  the  idea  of  legal 
substitution  should  be  retained.  Christ  bore 
our  sins;  our  iniquities  were  laid  upon  him; 
which,  according  to  the  true  meaning  of  Scrip- 
ture language,  can  only  signify,  that  he  bore 
the  punishment  of  those  sins;  not  the  same 
evils  indeed  either  in  kind  or  degree;  but  still 
penal,  because  judicially  inflicted  for  the  sup- 
port of  law.  .  .  .  This  idea  of  legal  substitu- 
tion enters  also  into  the  scriptural  view  of 
justification.  In  justification,  according  to 
Paul's  language,  God  imputes  righteousness 
to  the  ungodly.  This  righteousness  is  not 
their  own;  but  they  are  regarded  and  treated 
as  righteous  on  account  of  the  obedience  of 
Christ.  That  is,  his  righteousness  is  so  laid 
to  their  account  or  imputed  to  them  that  they 
are  regarded  and  treated  as  if  it  were  their 
own,  or  as  if  they  had  kept  the  law." — Com- 
mentary on  the  Romans,  pp.  127,  128. 


86  REMARKS  OF  DR.  OWEN. 

The  connexion  of  imputation  with  the 
work  of  Christ,  gives  to  this  doctrine  its  chief 
importance.  The  same  principle  is  apphed 
in  the  Bible  both  to  Adam  and  Christ.  If, 
therefore,  we  deny  our  legal  connexion  with 
Adam,  and  the  imputation  of  his  first  sin 
to  his  posterity,  we  must  necessarily  adopt 
views  concerning  the  method  of  salvation  by 
Jesus  Christ,  materially  different  from  those 
above  given.  On  the  supposition  that  the 
principle  of  representation  is  inadmissible  in 
the  case  of  Adam,  it  must  be  equally  so  in 
reference  to  Christ.  If  we  cannot  be  con- 
demned in  law  by  the  disobedience  of  the 
one,  we  cannot  be  justified  by  the  obedience 
of  the  other.  A  blow  is  thus  struck  at  the 
foundation  of  our  hope; — a  blow,  which,  if 
it  destroys  our  connexion  with  Adam,  des- 
troys also  our  connexion  with  Christ,  and  our 
title  to  heaven. 

Says  Owen,  "  By  some  the  imputation  of 
the  actual  apostasy  and  transgression  of 
Adam,  the  head  of  our  nature,  whereby  his 
sin  became  the  sin  of  the  world,  is  utterly 
denied.  Hereby  both  the  ground  the  apostle 
proceedeth  on,  in  evincing  the  necessity  of 
our  justification  or  our  being  made  righteous 
by  the  obedience  of  another,  and  all  the  argu- 
ments brought  in  confirmation  of  the  doctrine 
of  it,  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  his  epistle  to  the 
Romans,  are  evaded  and  overthrown.  Soci- 
nus  confesseth  that  place  to  give  great  coun- 
tenance unto  the  doctrine  of  justification  by 
the  imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  j 


REMARKS  OF  DR.  OWEN.  87 

and  therefore  he  sets  himself  to  oppose  with 
sundry  artifices  the  imputation  of  the  sin  of 
Adam,  unto  his  natural  posterity.  For  he 
perceived  well  enough  that  upon  the  admis- 
sion thereof,  the  imputation  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  unto  his  spiritual  seed,  would 
unavoidably  follow  according  unto  the  tenor 
of  the  apostle's  discourse."  .  .  .  *'  Some  deny 
the  depravation  and  corruption  of  our  nature, 
Avhich  ensued  on  our  apostasy  from  God,  and 
the  loss  of  his  image.  Or  if  they  do  not  ab- 
solutely deny  it,  yet  they  so  extenuate  it  as 
to  render  it  a  matter  of  no  great  concern  unto 
us."  .  .  .  .  "  That  deformity  of  soul  which 
came  upon  us  in  the  loss  of  the  image  of  God, 
wherein  the  beauty  and  harmony  of  all  our 
faculties,  in  all  their  actings,  in  order  unto 
their  utmost  end,  did  consist;  that  enmity 
unto  God,  even  in  the  mind  which  ensued 
thereon;  that  darkness  with  which  our  un- 
derstandings were  clouded,  yea,  blinded  with- 
al ;  the  spiritual  death  which  passed  on  the 
whole  soul,  and  total  alienation  from  the  life 
of  God;  that  impotency  unto  good,  that  in- 
clination unto  evil,  that  deceitfulness  of  sin, 
that  power  and  efficacy  of  corrupt  lusts, 
which  the  Scriptures  and  experience  so  fully 
charge  on  the  state  of  lost  nature,  are  rejected 
as  empty  notions,  or  fables.  No  wonder  if 
such  persons  look  upon  imputed  righteous- 
ness as  the  shadow  of  a  dream,  who  esteem 
those  things  which  evidence  its  necessity  to 
but  fond  imaginations.  And  small  hope  is 
there  to  bring  such  men  to  value  the  right- 


88  IMFUT^TION  AND  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

eousness  of  Christ,  as  impiUed  to  them,  who 
are  so  unacquainted  with  their  own  unright- 
eousness inherent  in  them." 

10.  The  Scripture  proofs  reUed  upon  to 
estabhsh  the  doctrine  of  imputation  and  ori- 
ginal sin,  are  such  as  the  following.  John 
iii.  3,  6:  "Except  a  man  be  born  again  he 
cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.  That  which 
is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which  is 
born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."  Here  our  first 
or  natural  birth  is  contrasted  with  our  second 
or  spiritual  birth.  If  at  the  first  we  are  unfit 
for  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  are  qualified 
only  by  the  second,  then  it  is  clear  we  are 
born  sinners. 

Rom.  V.  12 — 21.  "As  by  one  man  sin 
entered  into  the  world  and  death  by  sin,  so 
death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have 
sinned,  &c.  We  have  already  quoted  some 
remarks  on  this  passage  from  President  Ed- 
wards, in  the  last  chapter,  to  which  we  refer 
the  reader.  The  quotation  commences  as 
follows:  "  The  doctrine  of  the  corruption  of 
nature^  derived  from  Adam,  and  also  the 
imputation  of  his  first  sin,  are  both  clearly 
taught  in  it,"  &c.  The  phrases,  "  for  that, 
or  in  whom  all  have  sinned,^^  "  through  the 
05*6  nee  of  one  many  be  dead,^^  "the  judg- 
ment was  by  one  to  condemnation,^^  "by  one 
man's  offence,  death  reigned  by  o?2e,"  "by 
one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made 
sinners,'^  and  other  similar  ones,  contain  so 
exact  a  description  of  the  doctrine,  that  the 
proof  which  they  furnish  would  not  be  more 


SCRIPTURAL  PROOFS.  89 

conclusive,  if  the  very  words  impute  and 
original  sin  had  been  introduced. 

Rom.  vii.  18 — 23.  "For  I  know  that  in 
me  (that  is  in  my  flesh)  dvvelleth  no  good 
thing;  for  to  will  is  present  with  me;  but 
how  to  perform  that  which  is  good,  I  find 
not/'  &c.  This  struggle  between  the  old  and 
new  man,  between  indwelling  sin  and  the 
principle  of  grace,  affords  strong  evidence  of 
the  natural  propensity  of  man  to  sin. 

1  Cor.  XV.  22.  "  For  as  in  Adam  all  die, 
even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive.'' 
By  simply  reversing  the  order  of  the  passage, 
its  relevancy  to  our  present  purpose  will  be 
manifest.  As  all  who  shall  be  made  alive 
will  enjoy  this  blessing  by  virtue  of  their 
connexion  with  Christ  as  their  covenant 
head;  so  all  whodie,  experience  this  calamity 
in  consequence  of  a  similar  connexion  with 
Adam ;  who  "being  the  root  of  all  mankind, 
the  guilt  of  [his  first  sin]  was  imputed,  and 
the  same  death  in  sin,  and  corrujrted  nature, 
conveyed  to  all  his  posterity,  descending 
from  him  by  ordinary  generation." 

Eph.  ii.  3.  "  And  were  by  nature  the 
children  of  wrath,  even  as  others."  This 
has  been  generally  understood  both  by  an- 
cient and  modern  commentators  as  teaching 
the  doctrine  that  we  are  born  in  a  state  of  sin 
and  condemnation.  If  we  are  children  of 
wrath  by  nature,  we  must  have  been  horn 
in  that  condition;  and  if  born  children  of 
wrath,  we  must  have  been  born  in  sin. 

In  the  Old  Testament,  the  following  among 
8 


90  PROOFS  AND  REMARKS. 

Others  may  be  referred  to :  .  Gen.  vi.  5. 
''  And  God  saw  that  the  wickedness  of  man 
was  great  in  the  earth,  and  every  imagina- 
tion of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was  only 
evil  continually."  This  is  descriptive  not  of 
one  man  only,  but  of  the  race  ;  and  how  can 
this  universal  corruption  be  accounted  for 
except  on  the  principle  of  original  sin?  Job 
xiv.  4.  "Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out 
of  an  unclean?  not  one."'  If,  then,  parents 
are  "  unclean,"  if  they  are  universally  sinful, 
children  inherit  from  them  the  same  character. 
Psal.  li.  5.  "Behold  I  was  shapen  in  iniqui- 
ty, and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me." 
This  is  an  express  declaration  that  the  Psal- 
mist was  conceived  in  sin ;  and  if  it  was  true 
of  him,  it  is  true  of  all  others.  These  three 
passages  taken  in  connexion  form  a  complete 
syllogism  in  support  of  this  doctrine.  If  the 
first  of  them  is  applicable  to  all  mankind,  as 
appears  from  the  similarity  of  that  descrip- 
tion, and  those  given  by  David  and  Paul; 
and  if  the  two  latter  exhibit  the  fountain  from 
which  the  evil  imaginations  of  the  heart  take 
their  rise,  as  they  appear  clearly  to  indicate; 
then  all  men  possess  a  depraved  and  sinful 
nature,  inherited  from  their  parents. 

As  the  chief  object  of  the  present  volume 
is  to  exhibit  the  difference  between  the  Old 
and  New  Theology,  we  have  not  thought  it 
expedient  to  enter  largely  upon  the  proofs  m 
favour  of  the  former.  But  what  has  been 
adduced  is  sufficient,  we  think,  to  show  the 
truth  of  the  Old  system,  in  opposition  to  the 


OUR  CONNEXION  WITH  ADAM.  91 

New,  and  to  serve  as  a  kind  of  index  to  a 
more  minute  and  extensive  examination  of 
the  subject. 

"  Before  closing  the  chapter  we  will  make  a 
few  remarks  on  the  charge  of  injustice  which 
is  brought  against  the  views  entertained  by 
the  Old  School  divines  with  regard  to  this 
subject.  We  believe  it  to  be  wholly  unfound- 
ed; but  against  the  opposite  theory,  it  might 
be  made  to  lie  with  great  force.  Does  any 
one  pronounce  it  unjust  for  a  man  to  be  held 
liable  for  a  debt  contracted  by  one  of  his  an- 
cestors, provided  in  becoming  his  heir,  that 
was  made  one  of  the  legal  conditions  by 
which  he  should  inherit  his  estate  ?  But  sup- 
pose he  had  no  legal  connexion  with  him  at 
all,  but  simply  the  relation  of  natural  de- 
scent— which,  according  to  the  New  School 
doctrine,  is  our  only  connexion  with  Adam — 
where  would  be  the  justice  in  holding  him 
responsible  for  the  payment  of  his  ancestor's 
debts?  He  sustains  to  him,  remember,  no 
legal  connexion,  but  is  held  responsible, 
merely  because  he  is  his  descendant.  Is  this 
j^lst? — Since  then  all  are  obliged  to  admit 
that  we  suffer  evils  in  consequence  of  Adam's 
sin,  why  not  adopt  the  scripture  doctrine, 
that  being  included  with  him  in  the  covenant 
of  works,  we  became  legally  involved  in  the 
ruin  brought  upon  the  world  by  his  sin? 
This  covenant  or  legal  connexion,  renders  it 
just  that  we  should  inherit  these  calamities — 
but  on  any  other  principle  their  infliction 
upon  us  can  not  be  easily  explained,  without 


92 


OBSERVATIONS  AND  REMARKS. 


bearing  painfully  upon  the  justice  of  God's 
dispensations. 

Such  is  the  organization  of  human  govern- 
ments, that  we  are  usually  connected  in  law 
with  those  from  whom  we  have  descended — 
and  there  is  a  fitness  and  propriety  in  this 
arrangement.  Hence,  unless  special  provi- 
sion is  made  to  the  contrary,  the  natural 
descendant  becomes  the  legal  heir.  Such 
also  is  the  Divine  economy  with  regard  to 
man.  The  appointment  of  Adam  as  our 
federal  head  was  not  altogether  arbitrary,  as 
it  would  have  been,  had  he  been  appointed 
the  federal  head  of  angels — but  it  was  accord- 
ing to  the  fitness  of  things.  Hence  our  na- 
tural relation  is  made  use  of  as  the  medium 
of  bringing  about  those  results,  which  have 
their  origin  in  our /ec^er«/ relation.  Original 
sin  flows  to  us  through  the  channel  of  na- 
tural descent — and  various  evils  which  now 
flow  from  parent  to  child,  descend  in  the 
same  way: — but  i\\QU  foundation  must  be 
traced  back  to  the  covenant  made  with  our 
first  father,  as  the  representative  of  his  pos- 
terity; the  guilt  of  whose  first  sin  being  im- 
puted to  us,  a  corrupt  and  depraved  nature 
and  other  penal  evils  follow  as  the  conse- 
quence. Is  any  one  disposed  to  say,  I  never 
gave  my  consent  to  that  covenant,  and  there- 
fore it  is  unjust  to  punish  me  for  its  violation? 
We  ask  in  return,  whether  the  individual 
whose  case  has  been  supposed,  gave  his  con- 
sent that  his  ancestor  should  leave  the  estate 
which  he  has  inherited  from  him,  encum- 


THE  SUFFERINGS  OF  CHRIST.  93 

bered  with  debt?  And  yet,  no  sane  man 
would  ever  think  of  caUing  in  question  the 
propriety  of  his  being  held  responsible.  If, 
however,  he  had  no  legal  connexion  with 
that  ancestor,  his  natural  relation  would  not 
be  sufficient  to  bind  him.  He  is  his  heir,  not 
merely  because  he  has  descended  from  him, 
but  because  the  law  of  the  land  has  made 
him  such.  The  latter  and  not  the  former, 
imposes  upon  him  the  liabilities  which  his 
ancestor  incurred;  and  though  he  never  gave 
his  consent,  he  regards  it  as  just  and  right. 


CHAPTER  V. 


THE    SUFFERINGS    OF    CHRIST    AND    OUR    JUSTIFICATION 
THROUGH   HIM. 

The  nature  and  design  of  Christ's  sufferings 
are  generally  described  by  theological  wri- 
ters of  the  present  day,  under  the  name  of 
Atonement — a  term  not  found  in  our  stand- 
ards, and  but  once  in  the  English  version  of 
the  New  Testament.  For  a  considerable 
time  after  the  Reformation,  the  mediatorial 
work  of  Christ  was  commonly  expressed  by 
the  words,  reconciliation,  redemption,  and 
satisfaction :  which  are  the  terms  employed 
in  our  Confession  of  Faith.     This  accounts 


94  EXPLANATORY  REMARKS. 

for  the  fact  that  the  word  atonement  does  not 
occur  in  that  volume.  The  mere  use  of  a 
term  is  of  little  consequence,  provided  the 
true  doctrine  is  retained.  But  many  have 
not  only  laid  aside  the  ancient  phraseology, 
but  with  it,  all  that  is  valuable  in  the  atone- 
ment itself.  Instead  of  allowing  it  to  be  any 
proper  satisfaction  to  Divine  justice,  by  which 
a  righteous  and  holy  God  is  propitiated;  some 
affirm  that  it  was  designed  merely  to  make 
an  impression  on  inteUigent  beings  of  the 
righteousness  of  God,  thus  opening  the  way 
for  pardon — and  others,  that  it  was  intend- 
ed only  to  produce  a  change  in  the  sinner 
himself  by  the  influence  which  the  scenes 
of  Calvary  are  calculated  to  exert  on  his 
mind.  The  latter  is  the  Socinian  view,  and 
the  second  that  of  the  New  School. 

It  is  proper  to  remark  that  the  view  first 
alluded  to,  includes  the  other  two.  While  it 
regards  the  atonement  as  primarily  intended 
to  satisfy  the  -justice  of  God,  by  answering 
the  demands,  and  suffering  the  penalty  of  his 
law,  it  was  designed  and  adapted  to  make  a 
strong  impression  both  upon  the  universe  and 
upon  the  sinner  himself.  But  though  the 
first  view  includes  the  others  as  the  greater 
does  the  less,  these  do  not  include  the  first, 
but  reject  it.  By  making  the  atonement  con- 
sist wholly  in  the  second  or  third  view,  there 
is  involved  a  denial  that  Christ  endured  the 
penalty  of  the  law,  or  assumed  any  legal 
responsibility  in  our  behalf,  or  made  any 
satisfaction,  strictly  speaking,  to  the  justice 


THE  SUFFERINGS  OF  CHRIST.  95 

of  God — thus  giving  up  what  has  been  re- 
garded by  most,  if  not  all  evangelical  churches 
since  the  Reformation,  as  essential  to  the 
atonement. 

We  wish  to  observe  farther,  by  way  of 
explanation,  that  by  Christ's  enduring  the 
penalty  of  the  law,  is  not  meant  that  he  en- 
dured literally  the  same  suffering  either  in 
hind  or  duration  which  would  have  been 
inflicted  upon  the  sinner,  if  a  Saviour  had  not 
been  provided.  In  a  penalty,  some  things 
are  essential — others  incidental.  It  was  es- 
sential to  the  penalty,  that  Christ  should 
suffer  a  violent  and  ignominious  death — but 
whether  he  should  die  by  decapitation  or  by 
crucifixion,  was  incidental.  It  was  essential 
that  he  should  suffer  for  our  sins — but  how 
long  his  sufferings  should  continue,  was  in- 
cidental. If  inflicted  upon  us,  they  must 
necessarily  be  eternal— because  sin  is  an  in- 
finite evil,  and  finite  beings  cannot  endure 
the  punishment  which  is  due  to  it  except  by 
an  eternal  duration.  But  from  the  infinite 
dignity  of  Christ's  character,  the  penal  de- 
mands of  the  law  could  be  fully  answered 
by  his  suffering  ever  so  short  a  time.  A  simi- 
lar remark  may  be  made  concerning  the  re- 
morse of  conscience  which  forms  a  part  of 
the  torments  of  the  wicked.  The  imputation 
of  our  sins  to  Christ  does  not  involve  a  trans- 
fer of  moral  character,  but  only  of  legal 
responsibility.     In  being  ^'  made  sin  for  us,*' 

Christ  did  not  become  personally  a  sinner 

but  ^-  was  holy  and  harmless  and  undefiled.'' 


96  VIEWS  OF  DR.  EEMAN. 

Of  course  he  could  have  no  remorse  of  con- 
science, such  as  a  convicted  sinner  suffers  in 
view  of  his  guilt.  But  this  is  merely  inciden- 
tal, and  depends  upon  circumstances.  Some 
smners  never  appear  to  feel  remorse  at  all — 
and  no  sinner,  probably,  feels  it  at  all  times. 
What  is  intended  then  by  Christ's  suffering 
the  penalty  of  the  law  as  our  substitute  is, 
that  in  law  he  assumed  our  place,  and  en- 
dured all  that  was  essential  in  its  penal 
demands^whereby  he  fully  satisfied  Divine 
justice,  and  those  who  are  united  to  him  by 
faith,  are,  as  an  act  oi  justice  to  Christ,  but 
oifree  unbounded  mercy  to  them, "  redeem- 
ed from  the  curse  of  the  law,''  he  "being 
made  a  curse  for  them."  This  doctrine,  the 
Old  Theology  maintains — the  New  denies. 

The  following  quotations  will  exemplify 
the  New  School  views.  Dr.  Beman,*  in  his 
"  Sermons  on  the  Doctrine  of  the  Atone- 
ment," observes:  (p.  34,)  "The  law  can  have 
no  penal  demand  except  against  the  offender. 
With  a  substitute  it  has  no  concern;  and 
though  a  thousand  substitutes  should  die,  the 
law,  in  itself  considered,  and  left  to  its  own 
natural  operation,  would  have  the  same  de- 
mand upon  the  transgressor  which  it  al  ways 
had.  This  claim  can  never  be  invalidated. 
This  penal  demand  can  never  be  extinguish- 
ed."   Speaking  of  those  who  entertain  oppo- 

*  Dr.  Beman  has  not,  I  believe,  published  his  senti- 
ments on  the  other  points  embraced  in  the  New  Theo- 
ology,  and  therefore  I  cannot  state  with  certainty  what 
they  are. 


THE  SUFFERINGS  OF  CHRIST.  97 

site  views,  he  says,  (p.  45,)  "  Tiiey  contend 
that  the  real  penalty  of  the  law  was  inflicted 
on  Christ;  and  at  the  same  time  acknowledge 
that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  not  the 
same,  either  in  nature  or  degree,  as  those 
sufferings  which  were  threatened  against  the 
transgressor.     The  words  of  our  text  [Gal. 
iii.  13,]  are  considered  by  many  as  furnish- 
ing unequivocal  testimony  to  the  fact,  that 
Christ  endured  the  penalty  of  the  law  in  the 
room  of  his  people.     "  Christ  hath  redeemed 
us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a 
curse  for  us.''   But  it  is,  in  no  shape,  asserted 
here,  that  Christ  suffered  the  penalty  of  the 
law.     The  apostle  tells  us  in  what  sense  lie 
was   "made  a  curse   for  us.''     "Cursed  is 
every  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree."     Believ- 
ers are  saved  from  the  curse  or  penalty  of 
the  law  by  the  consideration,  that  Christ  was 
"  made  a  curse"  for  them  in  another  and  a 
very   different    sense.      He   was    "made   a 
curse"  inasmuch  as  he  suffered,  in  order  to 
open  the  door  of  hope  to  man,  the  pains  and 
ignominy  of  crucifixion.     He  hung  upon  a 
tree.     He  died  as  a  malefactor.     He  died  as 
one  accursed."     In  a  note  on  the  next  page, 
with  reference  to  some  remarks  in  a  sermon 
by  Dr.  Dana,  of  Londonderry,  he  observes: 
"  But  why  is  it  necessary  to  support  the  po- 
sition, that  the  curse  of  the  law  was  inflicted 
on  Christ?     If  it  should  be  said,  that  the 
Divine  veracity  was  pledged  to  execute  the 
law — we  reply  that  the  Divine  veracity  can 
find  no  support  in  that  kind  of  infliction  of 
9 


98 


the  curse  which  is  here  supposed.  A  sab- 
stantial  execution  of  the  law — an  endurance 
of  the  penalty  so  far  as  the  nature  of  the  case 
admitted  or  required — an  infliction  of  suffer- 
ing, not  upon  the  transgressor,  but  upon  a 
surety,  when  the  law  had  not  made  the  most 
distant  allusion  to  a  surety,  certainly  has 
much  more  the  appearance  of  evasion  than 
execution  of  the  law.^'  He  says,  (p.  51,) 
'^As  to  imputation,  we  do  deny  that  the  sins 
of  men,  or  of  any  part  of  our  race,  were  so 
transferred  to  Christ,  that  they  became  his 
sins,  or  were  so  reckoned  to  him,  that  he  sus- 
tained their  legal  responsibilities."*  Again, 
(p.  QS,)  "  There  is  nothing  in  the  character  of 
Christ's  sufferings  which  can  affect  or  modify 
the  penalty  of  the  law.  These  sufferings  were 
not  legal.  They  constituted  no  part  of  that 
curse  which  was  threatened  against  the  trans- 
gressor." 

What  then,  according  to  him,  was  the  na- 
ture of  Christ's  sufferings?  He  says,  (p.  35, 
36,)  "  He  suffered  and  died  the  just  for  the 
unjust;"  "and  those  sufferings  which  he  en- 
dured as  a  holy  being,  were  intended,  in  the 
case  of  all  those  who  are  finally  saved,  as  a 
substitute  for  the  infliction  of  the  penalty 
of  the  law.  We  say  a  substitute  for  the  in- 
fliction of  the  penalty ;  for  the  penalty  itself, 
if  it  be  executed  at  all,  must  fall  upon  the 
sinner,  and  upon  no  one  else."     Again,  (p. 

*  The  Old  Theolog-y  does  not  maintain  that  our  sins 
"  became  his  sins" — but  only  that  he  sustained  our  legal 
responsibilities. 


THE  SUFFERINGS  OF  CHRIST.  99 

50,  51,)  "  The  atonement  was  a  substitute  for 
the  infliction  of  the  penalty  of  the  law — or 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  a  substitute  for 

the  punishment  of  sinners This  is 

vicarious  suff'ering.  It  is  the  suff'ering  of 
Christ  in  the  place  of  the  endless  suffering  of 
the  sinner/'  Once  more:  (p.  64,  65,)  "The 
penalty  of  the  law,  strictly  speaking,  was  not 
inflicted  at  all;  for  this  penalty,  in  which  was 
[were]  embodied  the  principles  of  distribu- 
tive justice,  required  the  death  of  the  sinner, 
and  did  not  require  the  death  of  Christ.  As 
a  substitute  for  the  infliction  of  this  penalty, 
God  did  accept  of  the  suff'erings  of  his  Son." 
Was  there  then  no  satisfaction  made  to 
divine  justice?  Says  Dr.  Beman,  (p.  65,) 
"  The  law,  or  justice,  that  is,  distributive  jus- 
tice, as  expressed  in  the  law,  has  received  no 
satisfaction  at  all.  The  whole  legal  system 
has  been  suspended,  at  least,  for  the  present, 
in  order  to  make  way  for  the  operation  of 
one  of  a  diff"erent  character.  In  introducing 
this  system  of  mercy,  which  involves  a  sus- 
pension of  the  penal  curse,  God  has  required 
a  satisfaction  to  the  principles  of  general  or 
public  justice — a  satisfaction  which  will  eff'ec- 
tually  secure  all  the  good  to  the  universe 
which  is  intended  to  be  accomplished  by  the 
penalty  of  the  law  when  inflicted,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  prevent  all  that  practical  mischief 
which  would  result  from  arresting  the  hand 
of  punitive  justice  without  the  intervention 
of  an  atonement."  But  what  does  he  mean 
by  "general  or  public  justice?''  He  says, 
(p.  63,  64,)  "It  has  no  direct  reference  to 


100  DR.  beman's  views. 

law,  but  embraces  those  principles  of  virtue 
or  benevolence  by  which  we  are  bound  to 
govern  our  conduct ;  and  by  which  God  him- 
self governs  the  universe.  It  is  in  this  sense 
that  the  terms  "just"  and  "righteousness" 
occur  in  our  text.  [Rom.  iii.  26.]  ....  This 
atonement  was  required,  that  God  might  be 
"just,"  or  righteous,  that  is,  that  he  might  do 
the  thing  which  was  fit  and  proper,  and  best 
and  most  expedient  to  be  done:  and  at  the 
same  time  be  at  perfect  liberty  to  justify 
"him  which  believeth  in  Jesus." 

Let  me  now  inquire,  is  this  what  is  meant 
in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  where  it  reads, 
"  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  his  perfect  obe- 
dience and  sacrifice  of  himself,  which  he 
through  the  Eternal  Spirit  once  offered  up 
unto  God,  h3.ihfull7/  satisfied  the  justice  of 
his  FatherV^  We  think  not.  No  intimation 
of  this  kind  is  given.  The  framers  of  our 
Standards  do  not  appear  to  have  learned  that 
God  governs  the  universe  by  one  kind  of  jus- 
tice, viz.  by  the  "  principles  of  virtue  or  bene- 
volence;" and  punishes  sinners  for  rebeUing 
against  his  government,  by  another  and  a 
different  kind,  viz.  the  justice  which  is  "ex- 
pressed in  the  law." 

Are  these  two  kinds  of  justice  in  conflict 
with  each  other?  or  is  not  God's  justice  "'as 
expressed  in  the  law,"  the  same  kind  of  jus- 
tice by  which  he  "governs  the  universe?" 
Was  not  the  law  founded  on  the  "  principles 
of  virtue  or  benevolence  ?"  Why  then  could 
not  Jehovah  exhibit  those  principles,  by  the 


THE  SUFFERINGS  OF  CHRIST.  101 

obedience  and  sacrifice  of  Christ  in  our  be- 
half, ill  conformity  to  the  law?  "  But  when 
the  fnhiess  of  the  time  was  come,  God  sent 
forth  his  Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made  under 
the  law,  to  redeem  them,  that  ivere  under  the 
law,  that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of 
sons."  Gal.  iv.  4,  5.  Does  this  mean  that 
those  "  under  the  law,"  were  exposed  to  the 
retribution  of  one  kind  of  justice-,  and  that 
Christ,  who  was  "  made  under  the  law,  to 
redeem  them,"  rendered  satisfaction  to  an- 
other and  a  different  kitid — to  a  species  of 
justice  unknown  to  the  law,  and  contrary  to 
it?  Does  not  the  law  embody  those  things 
which  "  are  fit  and  proper,  and  best  and  most 
expedient  to  be  done?"  If  so,  why  was  it 
necessary  to  "suspend"  it,  in  order  to  intro- 
duce a  code  of  justice,  which  "  has  no  direct 
reference  to  law,"  but  belongs  to  a  system 
possessing  "a  different  character?" 

These  positions,  it  appears  to  me,  involve 
the  sentiment,  that  the  Divine  government 
and  law,  as  the  former  is  now  administered, 
are  not  in  harmony  with  each  other — that  the 
government  of  God  could  not  be  administered 
according  to  the  "  principles  of  virtue  or  bene- 
volence," in  a  manner  "  fit  and  proper,  and 
most  and  best  expedient  to  be  done" — without 
a  suspension  of  "  the  whole  legal  system  ;"  or 
which  is  the  same  thing,  a  disregard  of  his 
law.  And  if  the  atonement  proceeded  on 
this  principle,  we  cannot  perceive  why  it 
might  not  have  been  dispensed  with  altoge- 
ther— for  if  "  the  penalty  of  the  law  was  not 


102  DR.  BEMAN^S  VIEWS. 

inflicted  at  all,"  but  a  system  was  introduced 
"  which  involves  a  suspension  of  the  legal 
curse,"  why  might  not  God  as  moral  Gover- 
nor, in  the  exercise  of  that  "  virtue  or  bene- 
volence, by  which  he  governs  the  universe,*' 
and  in  pursuance  of  what  "was  fit  and  pro- 
per, and  best  and  most  expedient  to  be  done," 
have  suspended  "the  whole  legal  system," 
and  extended  pardon  to  sinnners  without  an 
atonement? 

Dr.  Beman  assigns  three  reasons  why  the 
atonement  was  necessary;  all  of  which  lose 
their  force  on  the  supposition  that  Christ  did 
not  suffer  the  penalty  of  the  law.  He  says, 
"the  atonement  was  necessary  as  an  expres- 
sion of  God's  regard  for  the  moral  law."  But 
how  could,  it  express  his  regard  for  the  law, 
provided  the  law  has  received  no  satisfaction 
at  all,  "  but  the  whole  legal  system  was  sus- 
pended in  order  to  make  way  for  the  opera- 
tion of  one,"  which  "has  no  direct  reference 
to  law?"  Again  he  says,  "the  atonement 
was  necessary  in  order  to  evince  the  Divine 
determination  to  punish  sin,  or  to  execute  the 
penalty  of  the  law."  On  the  principle  that 
Christ  acted  as  our  surety,  and  sustained  in 
our  stead  those  penal  evils  which  were  essen- 
tial to  the  execution  of  the  threatening  con- 
tained in  the  law,  we  can  perceive  how  "  the 
Divine  determination  to  punish  sin"  was 
evinced.  Not  so,  however,  if  we  "  deny 
that  the  sins  of  men  were  so  reckoned  to 
Christ,  that  he  sustained  their  legal  responsi- 
bilities;" and  view  the  atonement  as  "  a  sys- 


THE  SUFFERINGS  OF  CHRIST.  103 

tern  of  mercy,"  in  which  the  "sufferings  of 
Christ  were  not  legal,  and  constituted  no  part 
of  that  curse  which  was  threatened  against 
the  transgressor."  This  makes  the  atone- 
ment an  entire  departure  from  law,  and  could 
therefore  never  be  adduced  to  show  that  God 
has  determined  to  execute  its  penalty. 

The  other  reason  which  he  assigns  for  the 
necessity  of  the  atonement,  is  liable,  on  his 
principles,  to  the  same  objection.  "  The  ne- 
cessity of  the  atonement,  (says  he,)  will  fur- 
ther appear,  if  we  contemplate  the  relations 
of  this  doctrine  with  the  rational  universe." 

"  We  may  naturally  suppose,  that  it 

was  the  intention  of  God,  in  saving  sinners, 
to  make  a  grand  impression  upon  the  uni- 
verse." ..."  What  effect  would  the  salva- 
tion of  sinners  without  an  atonement,  proba- 
bly have  upon  the  angels  of  heaven  ?" .  .  .  . 
"This  example  has  taught  them  to  revere 
the  law,  and  to  expect  the  infliction  of  the 

penalty  upon  every  transgressor." 

"Every  angel  feels  the  impression  which  this 
public  act  is  calculated  to  make;  and  while 
he  dreads,  with  a  new  sensation,  the  penalty, 
he  clings  more  closely  to  the  precept  of  the 
law.  But  suppose  the  provisions  of  this  law 
were  entirely  set  aside,  in  our  world,  as  would 
be  the  case  if  sinful  men  were  to  be  saved 
without  an  atonement,  and,  in  the  estimation 
of  fallen  angels,  you  create  war  between  God 
and  his  own  eternal  law." 

Let  me  now  ask,  are  not  "the  provisions 
of  the  law  entu'ely  set  aside  in  our  world," 


104  DR.  beman's  views. 

according  to  his  scheme?  Not,  it  is  true, 
"  by  saving  sinful  men  without  an  atone- 
ment;-' but  by  saving  them  through  that 
kind  of  atonement,  which  "has  no  direct 
reference  to  law,"  and  "  involves  a  suspen- 
sion of  its  legal  curse.''  If  the  law  "  has  no 
concern  with  a  substitute;"  and  if  Christ's 
"  sufferings  constituted  no  part  of  that  curse, 
which  was  threatened  against  the  transgres- 
sor;" how  can  a  vieiv  of  his  sufferings  teach 
the  angels  "  to  revere  the  law,  and  to  expect 
the  infliction  of  the  penalty  upon  every  trans- 
gressor!" Would  it  not,  on  the  contrary, 
produce  the  impression  that  the  law  was 
given  up;  and  its  "provisions  entirely  set 
aside  in  our  world  ?"  and  if  this  would  be 
the  impression  upon  holy  angels,  it  would  be 
the  same  upon  devils.  To  use  his  own  lan- 
guage, "  in  the  estimation  of  fallen  angels, 
you  create  war  between  God  and  his  own 
eternal  law."  On  the  principle  that  Christ 
suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law  as  our  substi- 
tute, all  is  plain — but  if  not,  neither  man  nor 
angel  can  tell  satisfactorily,  how  "  God  can 
he  just  while  he  justifies  him  that  believeth;" 
or  why,  if  he  can  be  just  in  bestowing  par- 
don ivitk  an  atonement^  he  might  not  be 
just  in  bestowing  it  without  any. 

Another  work  on  the  atonement,  said  to 
have  been  founded  on  Dr.  Beman's  Sermons, 
has  been  published  in  England,  by  Mr.  Jen- 
kyn,  and  republished  in  this  country  with  an 
introductory  recommendation  by  Dr.  Carroll. 
On  these  two  accounts  it  may  be  properly  re- 


VIEWS  OF  MR.  JENKYN.  105 

ferred  to  as  a  specimen  of  the  New  Views.* 
Mr.  Jenkyn  introduces  seven  arguments  to 
prove  that  Christ  did  not  suffer  the  penaUy 
of  the  law — but  that  his  sufferings  were  a 
substitute  for  the  penalty.  According  to 
him,  the  very  idea,  of  an  atonement,  involves 
a  suspension  of  the  penalty.  "  An  atone- 
ment, (says  he,)  is  a  measure  or  an  expedient, 
that  is  a  satisfaction  for  the  suspension  of 
the  threatened  penalty.  A  suspension  or  a 
non-execution  of  the  literal  threatening  is 
always  implied  in  an  atonement."  P.  25. 
"  If  a  man  transgress  a  law,  he  must,  in 
a  just  a)id  firm  government,  be  punished. 
Why?  Lest  others  have  a  bad  opinion  of 
the  law  and  transgress  it  too.  But  suppose 
that  this  end  of  the  law  be  secured  without 
punishing  the  transgressor;  suppose  that  a 
measure  shall  be  devised  by  the  governor, 
which  shall  save  the  criminal,  and  yet  keep 
men  from  having  a  bad  opinion  of  the  law. 
Why,  in  such  case,  all  would  approve  of  it, 

*  Concerning  Dr.  Beman's  Discourses,  Mr.  Jenkyn 
says : — "  This  little  work  is  a  rich  nursery  of  what  Lord 
Bacon  calls  '  The  seeds  of  things.'  It  abounds  in  living- 
theological  principles,  each  of  which,  if  duly  cultivated 
and  reared,  would  unfold  great  and  ample  truths,  illustra- 
tive  of  this  great  doctrine."  Concerning  Jenkyn's  work, 
Dr.  Carroll  uses  similar  language  : — "  As  a  treatise,  (says 
he,)  on  the  grand  relations  of  the  atonement,  it  is  a  book 
which  may  be  emphatically  said  to  contain  '  the  seeds  of 
things' — the  elements  of  mightier  and  nobler  combinations 
of  thought  respecting  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  than  any 
modern  production." "  We  believe  that  its  in- 
fluence on  the  opinions  of  theological  students  and  minis- 
ters will  be  great  and  salutary,  beyond  computation," 


106  THE  SUFFERINGS  OF  CHRIST. 

both  on  the  score  of  justice  and  on  the  score 
of  benevolence.  For  public  justice  only  re- 
quires that  men  should  be  kept  from  having 
such  a  bad  opinion  of  the  law  as  to  break  it. 
If  this  can  be  done  without  inflicting  what, 
in  distributive  justice,  is  due  to  the  criminal, 
public  justice  is  satisfied,  because  its  ends  are 
fully  answered.  The  death  of  Christ  secures 
this  end."  P.  140, 1.  Again:  «  The  truth  of 
any  proposition  or  declaration,  consists  more 
in  the  spirit  than  in  the  letter  of  it.  Truth  in 
a  promise  and  truth  in  a  threatening^  are  dif- 
ferent, especially  in  measures  of  government. 
Truth  in  a  promise  obliges  the  promiser  to 
perform  his  word,  or  else  to  be  regarded  as 
unfaithful  and  false.  But  truth  in  a  threaten- 
ing does  not,  in  the  administration  of  discip- 
hne  or  government,  actually  oblige  to  literal 
execution;  it  only  makes  the  punishment  to 
be  due  and  admissible.  A  threatened  penalty 
does  not  deprive  the  lawgiver  of  his  sove- 
reign and  supra-legal  power  to  dispense  with 
it,  if  he  can  secure  the  ends  of  it  by  any  other 

measure." "  This   supra-legal 

prerogative  of  suspending  punishment,  God 
has  exercised  in  many  instances,  as  in  the 
sparing  of  Nineveh,  and  I  believe  in  the  spa- 
ring of  our  first  parents.  The  identical  penal- 
ty of  the  Eden  constitution  was  not  literally 
executed,  either  on  man  or  on  Christ.  It  was 
not  executed  on  man^  for  then  there  would 
have  been  no  human  race.  The  first  pair 
would  have  been  destroyed,  and  mankind 
would  never  have  come  into  being.     It  was 


VIEWS  OF  MR.  JENKYN.  107 

not  executed  on  Christ.  He  did  no  sin ;  he 
violated  no  constitution,  and  yet  he  died. 
Surely  no  law  or  constitution  under  which 
he  was,  could  legally  visit  him  with  a  penal- 
ty. If  it  be  said  that  he  suffered  it  for  others, 
let  it  be  remember-ed  that  immutable  verity 
as  much  requires  that  the  penalty  should  be 
inflicted  on  the  literal  sinner  only^  as  that  it 
should  be  inflicted  at  all."     P.  64,  QS. 

In  addition  to  the  remarks  already  made 
on  Dr.  Beman's  views,  which  will  answer 
equally  well  for  those  of  Mr.  Jenkyn,  we  wish 
to  notice  a  sentiment  not  before  alluded  to.  It 
is  contained  in  the  last  paragraph  quoted 
from  Jenkyn,  and  is  as  follows,  viz ;  that 
though  God  is  bound  to  fulfil  his  promises, 
he  is  not  bound  to  execute  his  threatenings. 
This  distinction  is  resorted  to  for  the  purpose 
of  avoiding  the  difficuhy,  that  if  God  does 
not  inflict  the  penalty  of  the  law  either  on 
the  sinner  or  upon  Christ  as  his  substitute, 
his  veracity  is  thereby  impeached.  We  ad- 
mit that  the  Divine  veracity  does  not  require 
the  execution  of  a  conditional  threatening, 
as  in  the  case  of  Nineveh;  but  no  one  will 
pretend  that  God's  law  threatened  punish- 
ment for  disobedience  conditionally.  The 
moment  the  law  was  violated,  the  transgressor 
fell  under  the  curse.  And  he  must  either 
endure  it  eternally,  or  be  released  by  having 
satisfaction  paid  to  divine  justice  in  some 
other  way.  "Cursed  is  every  one  that  con- 
tinueth  not  in  all  things  written  in  the  book 
of  the  law  to  do  them.''    "  In  the  day  thou 


108  THE  SUFFERINGS  OF  CHRIST. 

eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  die."  Ac- 
cordingly, as  soon  as  Adam  transgressed  he 
began  to  feel  the  curse.  He  lost  God's  im- 
age and  favour — he  became  spiritually  dead 
— and  he  would  have  suffered  temporal 
and  eternal  death,  had  they  not  been  averted 
by  the  interposition  of  a  substitute.*  The 
penalty  of  the  law  must  be  substantially  exe- 
cuted. 

"  Die  he  or  justice  must,  unless  for  him 
Some  other  able  and  as  willing,  pay 
The  rigid  satisfaction — death  for  death." 

If  God  is  not  bound  to  fulfil  his  threaten- 
ings,  how  can  it  be  proved  that  the  punish- 
ment of  the  wicked  will  be  eternal  ?  Though 
it  is  distinctly  and  frequently  asserted  in  the 
Bible  that  such  will  be  the  doom  of  the  finally 
impenitent,  yet  if  God's  veracity  does  not  re- 
quire the  execution  of  this  threatening,  there 
is  no  certainty  that  it  will  be  inflicted:  nay, 
there  is  much  reason  to  beUeve  the  contrary; 
because  if  there  is  nothing  in  God's  charac- 
ter, or  law,  which  requires  him  to  punish  sin, 
we  may  be  sure  that  his  infinite  goodness 
will  lead  him  to  release  the  sinner  from  con- 
demnation; and  thus,  atonement  or  noatone- 

*  It  is  sometimes  said  that  God  did  not  execute  his 
threatening  upon  Adam,  because  he  did  not  die  a  temporal 
death  that  very  day.  But  the  threatening  began  to  be  in- 
flicted that  very  day — and  this  was  all  which  was  intend- 
ed by  it.  From  the  nature  of  the  case,  eternal  death  can- 
not be  inflicted  in  a  day,  because  it  requires  an  endless 
duration.  Even  in  the  case  of  the  wicked  in  hell — it  has 
only  begun  to  be  inflicted — and  yet  who  doubts  that  they 
are  suifering  the  penalty  of  the  law  ? 


VIEWS  OF  MR.  BARNES.  109 

ment,  all  mankind  will  be  saved.  But  if  the 
nature  of  God  requires  him  to  punish  sin, 
and  if  when  he  has  threatened  to  punish  it, 
his  veracity  requires  him  to  execute  that 
threatening ;  then  either  Christ  endured  what 
was  essential  in  the  penalty  of  the  law  as 
our  substitute,  or  our  union  to  him  by  faith 
cannot  shelter  us  from  its  penal  demands. 
Its  threatenings  still  lie  against  us,  and  must 
ere  long  be  inflicted.  It  is  not  true,  there- 
fore, that  "there  is  no  condemnation  to  them 
that  are  in  Christ  Jesus."  He  is  not  "  an 
hiding  place  from  the  wind ;  a  covert  from  the 
tempest.'^ 

Mr.  Barnes  in  his  sermon  on  the  Way  of 
Salvation,  and  in  his  Notes  on  the  Romans, 
gives  substantially  the  same  view  of  the 
atonement  with  Dr.  Beman  and  Mr.  Jenkyn. 
But  in  another  production  of  his,  viz:  an  In- 
troductory Essay  to  Butler's  Analogy,  which 
Avas  first  published  in  the  Christian. Specta- 
tor, and  afterwards  prefixed  to  a  new  edition 
of  the  Analogy,  he  presents  the  subject  in  a 
manner  still  more  exceptionable.  If  I  mis- 
take not,  it  is  such  a  view  as  any  Unitarian 
in  the  United  States  would  subscribe  to.  His 
language  is  as  follows:  "Now,  in  recurring 
to  the  analogy  of  nature,  we  have  only  to 
ask,  whether  calamities  which  are  hastening 
to  fall  on  us,  are  ever  put  back  by  the  inter- 
vention of  another  ?  Are  there  any  cases  in 
which  either  our  own  crimes  or  the  manifest 
judgments  of  God,  are  bringing  ruin  upon 
us,  where  that  ruin  is  turned  aside  by  the 


110         ATONEMENT NEW  SCHOOL  VIEWS. 

interposition  of  others  ?  Now  we  at  once  cast 
our  eyes  backward  to  all  the  helpless  and 
dangerous  periods  of  our  being.  Did  God 
come  fortli  directly,  and  protect  us  in  the 
defenceless  period  of  infancy  ?  Who  watched 
over  the  sleep  of  the  cradle,  and  guarded  us 
in  sickness  and  helplessness?  It  was  the  ten- 
derness of  a  mother  bending  over  our  slum- 
bering childhood,  foregoing  sleep,  and  rest, 
and  ease,  and  hailing  toil  and  care  that  we 
might  be  defended.  Why  then  is  it  strange, 
that  when  God  thus  ushers  us  into  existence 
through  the  pain  and  toil  of  another,  he 
should  convey  the  blessings  of  a  higher  ex- 
istence by  the  groans  and  pangs  of  a  higher 
Mediator?  God  gives  us  knowledge.  But  does 
he  come  forth  to  teach  us  by  inspiration,  or 
guide  us  by  his  own  hand  to  the  fountains  of 
wisdom?  It  is  by  years  of  patient  toil  in  others 
that  we  possess  the  elements  of  science,  the 
principles  of  morals,  the  endowments  of  reli- 
gion. He  gives  us  food  and  raiment.  Is  the 
Great  Parent  of  benevolence  seen  clothing  us 
by  his  own  hand,  or  ministering  directly  to  our 
wants  ?  Who  makes  provisions  for  the  sons 
and  daughters  of  feebleness,  gaiety,  or  idle- 
ness ?  Who  but  the  care-worn  and  anxious 
father  and  mother,  who  toil  that  their  off- 
spring may  receive  these  benefits  from  their 
hands  ?  Why  then  may  not  the  garments  of 
salvation  and  the  manna  of  life,  come  through 
a  higher  Mediator,  and  be  the  fruit  of  severer 
toil  and  sufferings  ?  Heaven's  highest,  richest 
benefits  are  thus  conveyed  to  the  race  through 


QUOTATIONS  FROM  MR.  BARNES.      Ill 

thousands  of  hands  acting  as  mediums  be- 
tween man  and  God.  It  is  thus  through  the 
instrumentahty  of  others,  that  the  great  Giver 
of  life  breathes  heaUh  into  our  bodies,  and 
vigour  into  our  frames.  And  why  should  he 
not  reach  also  the.sick  and  weary  mind — the 
soul  languishing  under  a  long  and  wretched 
disease,  by  the  hand  of  a  mediator?  Why 
should  he  not  kindle  the  glow  of  spiritual 
health  on  the  wan  cheek,  and  infuse  celestial 
life  into  our  veins,  by  him  who  is  the  great 
Physician  of  our  souls?  The  very  earth,  air, 
waters,  are  all  channels  for  conveying  bless- 
ings to  us  from  God.  Why  then  should  the 
infidel  stand  back,  and  all  sinners  frown, 
when  we  claim  the  same  thing  in  redemp- 
tion, and  affirm  that  in  this  great  concern, 
"there  is  one  Mediator  between  God  and 
man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  who  gave  him- 
self a  ransom  for  all? 

"  But  still  it  may  be  said,  that  this  is  not 
an  atonem^ent.  We  admit  it.  We  maintain 
only  that  it  vindicates  the  main  principle  of 
atonement,  and  shows  that  it  is  according  to 
a  general  law,  .that  God  imparts  spiritual 
blessings  to  us  through  a  Mediator.  What, 
we  ask,  is  the  precise  objectionable  point  in 
the  atonement,  if  it  be  not  that  God  aids  us 
in  our  sins  and  woes,  by  the  self-denial  and 
sufterings  of  another  ?  And  we  ask,  whether 
there  is  any  thing  so  peculiar  in  such  a  sys- 
tem, as  to  make  it  intrinsically  absurd  and 
incredible  ?  Now  we  think  there  is  nothing 
more  universal  and  indisputable  than  a  sys- 


112    ATONEMENT NEW  SCHOOL  VIEWS. 

tern  of  nature  like  this.  God  has  made  the 
whole  animal  world  tributary  to  man.  And 
it  is  by  the  toil  and  pain  of  creation,  that  our 
wants  are  supplied,  our  appetites  gratified, 
our  bodies  sustained,  our  sickness  alleviated 
— that  is,  the  impending  evils  of  labour,  fam- 
ine, or  disease  are  put  away  by  these  substi- 
tuted toils  and  privations.  By  the  blood  of 
patriots  he  gives  us  the  blessings  of  liberty — 
that  is,  by  /Ae^V  sufferings  in  our  defence  we 
are  delivered  from  the  miseries  of  rapine, 
murder,  or  slavery,  which  might  have  en- 
compassed our  dwellings.  The  toil  of  a 
father  is  the  price  by  which  a  son  is  saved 
from  ignorance,  depravity,  w^ant,  or  death. 
The  tears  of  a  mother,  and  her  long  watch- 
fulness, save  from  the  perils  of  infancy,  and 
an  early  death.  Friend  aids  friend  by  toil ; 
a  parent  foregoes  rest  for  a  child;  and  the 
patriot  pours  out  his  blood  on  the  altars  of 
freedom,  that  others  may  enjoy  the  blessings 
of  liberty — that  is,  that  others  may  not  be 
doomed  to  slavery,  want,  and  death. 

"  Yet  still  it  may  be  said,  that  we  have  not 
come,  in  the  analogy,  to  the  precise  point  of 
the  atonement,  in  producing  reconciliation 
with  God  by  the  sufferings  of  another.  We 
ask  then,  what  is  the  Scripture  account  of 
the  effect  of  the  atonement  in  producing  re- 
conciliation ?  Man  is  justly  exposed  to  suffer- 
ing. He  is  guilty,  and  it  is  the  righteous 
purpose  of  God  that  the  guilty  should  suffer. 
God  is  so  opposed  to  him  that  he  will  inflict 
suffering  on  him,  unless  by  an  atonement  it 


aUOTATIONS  FROBI  MR.  BARNES.  113 

is  prevented.  By  the  intervention  of  an 
atonement,  therefore,  the  Scriptures  affirm 
that  such  sufferings  shall  be  averted.  The 
man  shall  be  saved  from  the  impending 
calamity.  Sufficient  for  all  the  purposes  of 
justice  and  of  just  government,  has  fallen  on 
the  substitute,  and  the  sinner  may  be  par- 
doned and  reconciled  to  God.  Now,  we 
affirm  that  in  every  instance  of  the  substi- 
tuted sufferings,  or  self-denial  of  the  parent, 
the  patriot,  or  the  benefactor,  there  occurs  a 
state  of  things  so  analogous  to  this,  as  to 
show  that  it  is  in  strict  accordance  with  the 
just  government  of  God,  and  to  remove  all 
the  objections  to  the  peculiarity  of  the  atone- 
ment. Over  a  helpless  babe  ushered  into  the 
world,  naked,  feeble,  speechless,  there  im- 
pend hunger,  cold,  sickness,  sudden  death — 
a  mother's  watchfulness  averts  these  evils. 
Over  a  nation  impend  revolutions,  sword, 
famine,  and  the  pestilence.  The  blood  of  the 
patriot  averts  these,  and  the  nation  smiles  in 
peace.  Look  at  a  single  instance:  Xerxes 
poured  his  millions  on  the  shores  of  Greece. 
The  vast  host  darkened  all  the  plains,  and 
stretched  towards  the  capital.  In  the  train 
there  followed  weeping,  blood,  conflagration, 
and  the  loss  of  hberty.  Leonidas,  almost 
alone,  stood  in  his  path.  He  fought.  Who 
can  calculate  the  effects  of  the  valour  and 
blood  of  that  single  man  and  his  compatriots 
in  averting  calamities  from  Greece,  and  from 
other  nations  struggling  in  the  cause  of  free- 
dom? Who  can  tell  how  much  of  rapine,  of 
10 


114    ATONEME>T NEW  SCHOOL  VIEWS. 

cruelty,  and  of  groans  and  tears  it  turned 
away  from  that  nation  ?" 

It  is  due  to  Mr.  Barnes  to  state,  that  he 
observes  in  the  words  immediately  following 
the  above  extract,  "  Now  we  by  no  means 
affirm  that  this  is  all  that  is  meant  by  an 
atonement,  as  revealed  by  Christianity."  Yet 
in  his  subsequent  remarks  he  does  not  ad- 
vance a  single  idea  which  gives  a  higher 
view  of  that  great  transaction,  than  is  present- 
ed above :  and  in  the  passage  we  have  quoted, 
he  affirms  that  the  view  which  he  has  given 
"  vindicates  the  main  j^^^inciple  of  atone- 
ment." If  his  illustrations  vindicate  the  main 
principle  of  atonement,  they  must  convey  a 
correct  idea  of  what  the  atonement  is.  But 
if  the  reader  is  left  to  obtain  his  knowledge 
on  this  subject  from  these  statements,  he 
would  adopt  a  scheme  unworthy  the  name  of 
atonement.  Indeed,  Mr.  Barnes  admits,  with 
reference  to  the  first  part  of  his  statement, 
that  it  is  not  an  atonement;  though  at  the 
same  time  he  asserts  that  the  "  main  principle 
of  atonement"  is  vindicated  by  the  view 
which  he  had  presented.  But  if  the  <^  main 
principle''''  of  atonement  is  exhibited  in  any 
part  of  the  above  extract,  or  in  the  whole 
taken  together,  we  can  see  no  reason  for  the 
necessity  of  a  Divine  Mediator  ;  and  should 
be  disposed  seriously  to  inquire  whether  So- 
cinianism  is  not  all  the  Christianity  that  we 
need?* 

*  The   Christian    Examiner,    a    Unitarian   periodical, 
published  at  Boston,  contains  a  review  of  Mr.  Barnes's 


QUOTATIONS  FROM  DR.  MURDOCK.  115 

We  shall  give  but  one  more  specimen  of 
the  New  Theology  on  this  subject.  It  will 
be  taken  from  a  sermon  of  Dr.  Murdock, 
preached  before  the  students  at  Andover  in 
1823.  He  was  at  that  time  a  professor  in 
the  Andover  Theological  Seminary. 

''In  this  text  [Rom.  iii.  25,  26J  Paul  de- 
clares explicitly,  what  was  the  immediate 
object  of  Christ's  atoning  sacrifice;  that  is, 
what  effect  it  had  in  the  economy  of  redemp- 
tion, or  how  it  laid  a  proper  foundation  for 
the  pardon  and  the  salvation  of  sinful  men. 
It  was  the  immediate  object  of  this  sacrifice 
to  declare  the  righteousness  of  God  :  in  other 
words,  to  display  and  vindicate  the  perfect 
holiness  and  uprightness  of  his  character  as 
a  moral  Governor.  This  display  being  made, 
he  can  with  propriety  forgive  all  that  believe 
in  Christ  Jesus."  .  ..."  To  enable  God  right- 
eously to  pardon  the  repenting  sinner,  the 

Notes  on  the  Romans,  in  which  the  writer  observes,  "  On 
the  atonement,  our  author's  views  are  far  in  advance  of 
those  of  the  church  to  which  he  belongs.  Though  he 
maintains  that  Christ  was  in  some  sense  a  substitute  in 
the  place  of  sinners  he  denies  a  strictly  and  fully  vicarious 
atonement,  and  makes  the  Saviour's  death  important  chief- 
ly as  an  illustration  of  the  inherent  and  essential  connex- 
ion  between  sin  and  suffering."  With  regard  to  the  book, 
tlie  reviewer  says,  "  While,  for  the  most  part,  we  would 
advise  no  additions,  were  the  work  re-edited  under  Unita- 
rian supervision,  we  should  note  exceedingly  few  omis- 
sions.  Indeed,  on  many  of  the  standard  and  Trinitarian 
proof-texts,  Mr.  Barnes  has  candidly  indicated  the  inade- 
quacy of  the  text  to  prove  the  doctrine."  .  .  .  .  "  Sometimes 
Mr.  Barnes  does  not  so  much  as  suggest  a  Trinitarian  idea 
in  commenting  on  texts  which  have  been  deemed  decided- 
ly and  irresistibly  Trinitarian  in  their  bearing." 


116  ATONEMENT NEW  SCHOOL  VIEWS. 

atonement  must  give  the  same  support  to 
law,  or  must  display  as  impressively  the  per- 
fect holiness  and  justice  of  God,  as  the  exe- 
cution of  the  law  on  transgressors  would. 
It  must  be  something  different  from  the  exe- 
cution of  the  law  itself;  because  it  is  to  be  a 
substitute  for  it,  something  which  renders  it 
safe  and  proper  to  suspend  the  regular  course 
of  distributive  justice."  .  .  .  .  "  Now  such  an 
expedient,  the  text  represents  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  to  be.  It  is  a  declaration  of  the  right- 
eousness of  God;  so  that  he  might  be  just" 
— might  secure  the  objects  of  distributive  jus- 
tice, as  it  becomes  a  righteous  moral  gover- 
nor to  do — <^  and  yet  might  justify,"  or  acquit 
and  exempt  from  punishment  him  that  be- 
lieveth  in  Jesus.  It  was  in  the  nature  of  it, 
an  exhibition  or  proof  of  the  righteousness  of 
God.  It  did  not  consist  in  the  execution  of 
the  law  on  any  being  whatever ;  for  it  was  a 

substitute  for  the  execution  of  it." 

"  Its  immediate  influence  was  not  on  the 
character  and  relations  of  man  as  transgres- 
sors, Uor  on  the  claims  of  the  law  upon  them. 
Its  direct  operation  was  on  the  feelings  and 
apprehensions  of  the  beings  at  large,  who 
are  under  the  moral  government  of  God.  In 
two  respects  it  coincided  precisely  with  a 
public  execution  of  the  law  itself:  its  imme- 
diate influence  was  on  the  same  persons ; 
and  that  influence  was  produced  in  the  same 
way — by  means  of  a  public  exhibition."  .  .  . 
"  The  only  difficulty  is  to  understand  how 
this  exhibition  was  a  display  of  the  righteous- 


QUOTATIONS  FROM  DR.  MURDOCK.  117 

ness  of  God.  To  solve  it,  some  have  resorted 
to  the  supposition  that  the  Son  of  God  became 
our  sponsor,  and  satisfied  the  demands  of  the 
law  by  suffering  in  our  stead.  But  to  this 
hypothesis  there  are  strong  objections.  To 
suppose  that  Christ  was  really  and  truly  our 
sponsor,  and  that  he  suffered  in  this  charac- 
ter, would  involve  such  a  transfer  of  legal 
obligations  and  liabilities  and  merits,  as  is 
inadmissible;  and  to  suppose  any  thing  short 
of  this,  will  not  explain  the  difficulty.  For 
if,  while  we  call  him  a  sponsor,  we  deny  that 
he  was  legally  holden  or  responsible  for  us, 
and  liable  in  equity  to  suffer  in  our  stead,  we 
assign  no  intelligilDle  reason  why  his  suffer- 
ings should  avail  any  thing  for  our  benefit, 
or  display  at  all  the  righteousness  of  God." 

"  We  must,  therefore,  resort  to  some 

other  solution.  And  what  is  more  simple, 
and  at  the  same  time  satisfactory,  than  that 
which  is  suggested  by  the  text?  The  atone- 
ment was  an  exhibition  or  display ;  that  is, 
it  was  a  symbolical  transaction.  It  was  a 
transaction  in  which  God  and  his  Son  were 
the  actors;  and  they  acted  in  perfect  harmony, 
though  performing  different  parts  in  the  au- 
gust drama." "  The  object  of  both,  in 

this  affecting  tragedy,  was  to  make  an  im- 
pression on  the  minds  of  rational  beings  every 
where  and  to  the  end  of  time.  And  the  im- 
pression to  be  made  was,  that  God  is  a  holy 
and  righteous  God;  that  while  inclined  to 
mercy  he  cannot  forget  the  demands  of  jus- 
tice and  the  danger  to  his  kingdom  from  the 


118  ATONEMENT — OLD   THEOLOGY. 

pardon  of  the  guilty;  that  he  must  show  his 
feelings  on  this  subject:  and  show  them  so 
clearly  and  fully  that  all  his  rational  creatures 
shall  feel  that  he  honours  his  law  while  sus- 
pending its  operation,  as  much  as  he  would 
by  the  execution  of  it.  But  how,  it  may  be 
asked,  are  these  things  expressed  or  repre- 
sented by  this  transaction?  The  answer  is — 
symbolically.  The  Son  of  God  came  down 
to  our  world  to  do  and  suffer  what  he  did; 
not  merely  for  the  sake  of  doing  those  acts 
and  enduring  those  sorrows,  but  for  the  sake 
of  the  impression  to  be  made  on  the  minds 
of  all  beholders,  by  his  labouring  and  suffer- 
ing in  this  manner." 

The  principal  difference  between  these 
views  and  those  of  Dr.  Beman  and  others  of 
the  same  school,  is  that  he  has  laid  aside  the 
usual  orthodox  terms,  and  expressed  his  sen- 
timents in  other  language.  Perhaps  this  was 
one  reason  why  such  a  sensation  was  pro- 
duced in  the  community  by  the  appearance 
of  the  sermon.  Professor.  Stuart  published 
two  discourses  (if  1  remember  correctly.) 
with  a  view  to  counteract  its  influence;  and 
Dr.  i)ana,  of  Londonderry,  preached  a  ser- 
mon (probably  for  the  same  end,)  before  the 
Convention  of  Congregational  and  Presby- 
terian Ministers  of  New-Hampshire;  which 
was  published  by  their  request.  From  this 
sermon  we  shall  give  some  extracts,  as  ex- 
pressive of  the  Old  Theology  on  this  subject. 
His  text  is  in  Isa.  liii.  4,  5,  6;  concerning 
which  he  observes: 


aUOTATIONS  FROM  DR.  DANA.  119 

"Jehovah,  the  just,  the  benevolent  Jeho- 
vah, is  pleased  to  bruise  him  and  to  put 
him   to  grief.      Unparalleled   mystery! 
How  shall  it  be  explained?     One  fact,  and 
that  alone   explains   it.     Pie   suffered   as  a 
substitute.     He  suffered  not  for  himself,  but 
for  those  whom  he  came  to  save.     This  the 
prophet  unequivocally  declares  in  the  text ; 
and  declares  in  such  variety  and  accumula- 
tion of  language,  as  is  calculated  to  make  the 
very  strongest  impression  on  the  mind."  .  .  . 
"A  moment's   refiectioa   may   convince   us 
that  if  any  of  our  sinful  race  are  to  be  par- 
doned and  saved,  an  atonement  is  absolutely 
necessary.     God  is  holy  and  just;  infinitely 
and  immutably  holy  and  just.     These  attri- 
butes imply  that  he  has  a  perfect  and  irre- 
concilable   aversion    to    all   sin ;   and   must 
manifest  this  aversion  to  his  creatures.     But 
how  can  this   be  done  if  sin  be  pardoned, 
without  an  atonement?   Would  not  the  great 
Jehovah  in  this  case,  practically  deny  him- 
self?    Would  not  the  lustre  of  his  glorious 
attributes  be  awfully  eclipsed  and  tarnished? 
Further,  as  the   Sovereign  of  the  universe, 
God  has  given  his  intelligent  creatures  a  law. 
This  law,  while  it  requires  perfect  obedience, 
must  likewise  be  enforced  by  penalties.   Nor 
is  it  enough  that  these  penalties  be  merely 
denounced.    They  must  be  executed  on  those 
who  incur  them  by  transgression;  or  on  a 
surety.     Otherwise,  where  is  the  truth  of  the 
Lawgiver?     Where  is   the   stability  of  the 
law  ?   Where  is  the  dignity  of  government  ?" 


120  ATONEMENT OLD    THEOLOGY, 

....  "  Still  further,  it  is  easy  to  see  that 
satisfaction,  if  made  hy  a  surety,  must  cor- 
respond with  the  debt  due  from  those  in 
whose  behalf  it  is  rendered.  Mankind  uni- 
versally owe  to  their  heavenly  Sovereign,  a 

debt  of  perfect,  undeviating  obedience." 

*'  We  have  likewise  contracted  a  debt  of 
punishment.  This  results  from  the  penal 
sanction  of  the  law,  and  is  proportionate  to 
the  evil  of  sin.  It  corresponds  with  the  ma- 
jesty and  glory  of  the  Lawgiver,  and  with 
our  own  obligations  to  obedieuce.  Now  if  a 
surety  undertake  for  us,  he  must  pay  our 
debt  in  both  these  regards." ....  "  As  to  his 
sufferings,  we  contend  not  that  the  Re- 
deemer endured  precisely  the  same  misery, 
in  kind  or  degree,  to  which  the  sinner  was 
exposed,  and  which  he  must  otherwise  have 
endured.  This  was  neither  necessary  nor 
possible.  Infinite  purity  could  not  know  the 
tortures  of  remorse.  Infinite  excellence  could 
not  feel  the  anguish  of  malignant  passions. 
Nor  was  it  needful  that  the  Saviour,  in 
making  atonement  for  human  guilt,  should 
sustain  sufferings  without  end.  Such,  it  is 
admitted,  must  have  been  the  punishment  of 
the  sinner,  had  he  borne  it  in  his  own  per- 
son. But  this  necessity  results,  not  directly 
from  the  penal  sanction  of  the  law,  but  from 
the  impossibility  that  a  finite  transgressor 
should,  within  any  limited  period,  render 
satisfaction  for  his  sins.  But  the  infinite  dig- 
nity of  the  Saviour  imparted  an  infinite  value 
and    efficacy   to    his   temporary  sufferings. 


aUOTATIONS  FROM  DR.  DANA.  121 

Indeed  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  he  endured 
as  much  of  that  same  misery  to  which  the 
sinner  stands  exposed,  as  consisted  with  tiie 
perfect  innocence,  dignity  and  glory  of  his 
character.  He  suffered  not  only  the  united 
assaults  of  human,  cruelty  and  infernal  rage, 
but  the  far  more  torturing  pains  of  Divine 
dereliction.  And  inasmuch  as  the  Scripture 
expressly  declares  that  in  redeeming  us  from 
the  law  he  was  made  a  curse  for  us,  we  are 
constrained  to  conclude  that  his  sufferings 
were  a  substantial  execution  of  the  threaten- 
ing of  the  law;  a  real  endurance  of  its  penal- 
ty, so  far  as  the  nature  of  the  case  admitted 
or  required." 

With  reference  to  Dr.  Murdock's*  views, 
Dr.  Dana  observes:  "In  the  first  place,  it 
tends,  apparently  at  least,  to  subvert  the  law. 
It  declares  that '  the  atonement  is  something 
different  from  the  execution  of  tlie  law,  and 
a  substitute  for  it ;'  that  ^  it  did  not  fulfil 
the  law,  or  satisfy  its  demands  on  transgres- 
sors.^ In  accordance  with  these  views,  it 
declares  that  *  the  justification  of  believers  is 
not  founded  on  the  principles  of  law  and 
distributive  justice;'  and  further,  that  it  is  a 
real  departure  from  the  regular  course  of 
justice;  and  such  a  departure  from  it,  as 
leaves  the  claims  of  the  law  on  the  persons 
justified  forever  unsatisfied.  Without  com- 
menting at  large  on  these  suggestions  so 
peculiar,  and  so  grating  (as  I  apprehend)  to 

*  Dr.  Murdock  is  not  mentioned  by  name. 
11 


122  ATONEMENT — OLD   THEOLOGY, 

the  ears  and  hearts  of  most  Christians,  I  will 
simply  set  before  you  the  Saviour's  own  in- 
tentions, in  his  advent  and  mediation;  and 
these  as  declared  in  his  own  words:  *  Think 
not  (says  he)  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the 
law  or  the  prophets.  I  am  not  come  to 
destroy,  but  to  fulfil.  For  verily  I  say  unto 
you,  till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or 
one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law 
till  all  be  fulfilled,'  Surely  then  his  atone- 
ment was  not  ^a  substitute  for  the  execu- 
tion of  the  law.'  On  the  contrary,  his  obe- 
dience and  sufferings  were  a  substantial  ful- 
filment of  its  precept  and  its  penalty;  and 
were  designed  to  procure  the  justification  and 
salvation  of  men,  not  through  a  ^departure 
from  the  regular  course  of  justice;'  not  by 
*  leaving  the  claims  of  the  law  forever  unsat- 
isfied;' but  in  perfect  accordance  with  the 
immutable  and  everlasting  principles  both  of 
law  and  justice."  .... 

2.  "  This  scheme  gives  us  such  views  of 
the  divine  character,  as  are  equally  inexpli- 
cable and  distressing."  ....  "A  Being  of 
spotless  innocence,  and  Divine  dignity;  a 
Being  adored  by  angels  and  dear  to  God;  a 
Being,  in  short,  the  most  lovely  and  glorious 
that  the  intelligent  creation  ever  saw,  is  sub- 
jected to  sufferings  more  complicated  and 
severe  than  were  ever  before  endured  in  our 
world;  and  all  this  not  byway  of  substitu- 
tion; not  by  way  oi  satisfaction  f 07^  the  sins 
of  others;  but  oi  exhibition  or  displayP^ 

3.  "  It  is  a  serious  question  whether  the 


QUOTATIONS  FROM  DR.  DANA.  123 

theory  in  view  does  not  comprise  a  virtual 
denial  of  the  atonement  itself.  It  leaves  us 
the  name;  but  what  does  it  leave  of  the 
reaHty?  An  exhibit  ion  is  not  an  atonement. 
A  display  is  not  an  atonement.  A  mere  sytn- 
bolical  transaction  is  not  an  atonement."  .  . 
"Where, then, let  it  be  asked  in  ihe  fourth 
place,  is  the  foundation  of  the  believer's 
hope?  It  is  a  notorious  fact,  that  the  great 
body  of  Christians  in  every  age  have  em- 
braced the  doctrine  of  the  vicarious  sufferings 
and  obedience  of  their  Saviour.  Pressed  with 
a  sense  of  guilt,  they  have  taken  refuge  in 
his  atoning  blood.  Conscious  of  the  imper- 
fection of  their  best  obedience,  they  have 
trusted  in  his  righteousness  alone.  United  to 
their  Redeemer  by  living  faith,  they  have 
assured  themselves  of  a  personal  interest  in 
his  atonement  and  righteousness.  And  they 
have  exulted  in  the  thought  that  this  method 
of  salvation  met  all  the  demands,  and  secured 
all  the  honours,  of  the  divine  law  and  jus- 
tice. Shall  Christians  now  be  told  that  this 
is  mere  dream  and  delusion;  that  no  proper 
satisfaction  for  their  sins  has  ever  been  made; 
that  their  justification  is  nothing  but  an  abso- 
lute pardon;  and  that  even  this  is  a  'depar- 
ture from  the  regular  course  of  justice?'  Doc- 
trine like  this  is  calculated  to  appal  the 
believer's  heart,  and  plant  thorns  in  his  dying 
pillow.  It  is  even  calculated  to  send  a  pang 
to  the  bosoms  of  the  blest ;  to  silence  those 
anthems  of  praise  which  the  redeemed  on 
high  are  offering  *to  Him  that  loved  them 


124  ATONEMENT — OLD  THEOLOGY. 

and  washed  them  from  their  sms  in  his  own 
blood.' ^' 

There  was  the  same  necessity  for  Christ's 
suffering  the  penalty  of  the  law,  as  for  his 
suifering  at  all.  To  employ  the  language  of 
a  venerable  professor,  "The  penalty  of  a  holy, 
violated  law,  was  the  only  thing  which  stood 
in  the  way.  Mere  sufferings  of  any  one  are 
of  no  value,  except  in  relation  to  some  end. 
The  sufferings  of  Christ  could  no  otherwise 
open  a  way  of  pardon  but  by  removing  the 
penalty  of  the  law;  but  they  could  have  no 
tendency  to  remove  the  penalty  but  by  his 
enduring  it.  Sufferings  not  required  by  law 
and  justice  must  have  been  unjust  sufferings, 
and  never  could  effect  any  good.  Such  ex- 
hibition could  not  have  the  effect  of  demon- 
strating God's  hatred  of  sin,  for  it  was  not 
the  punishment  of  sin;  nor  could  it  make  the 
impression  on  the  world,  that  the  Ruler  of 
the  Universe  would  hereafter  punish  sin;  for, 
according  to  this  theory,  sin  goes  unpunished, 
and  dreadful  sufferings  are  inflicted  on  the 
innocent  to  whom  no  sin  is  imputed.  This 
scheme  as  really  subverts  the  true  doctrine  of 
atonement,  as  that  of  Socinus;  and  no  rea- 
son appears  why  it  was  necessary  that  the 
person  making  this  exhibition  should  be  a 
Divine  person." — Dr.  Alexander. 

The  whole  controversy  concerning  the  na- 
ture of  the  atonement,  may  be  resolved  into 
two  questions:  1.  Is  God  bound  to  punish 
sin?  and  2.  Does  this  necessity  arise  from 
the  nature  of  God,  or  from  circumstances 


REMARKS  OF  DR.  SYMINGTON.  125 

which  lie  without  him?  In  other  words,  do 
his  holiness  3ind  justice  require  him  to  mani- 
fest his  abhorrence  to  sin  by  inflicting  upon 
it  deserved  punishment  ?  or  does  the  neces- 
sity for  manifesting  this  abhorrence  lie  only 
in  "reasons  of  state,"  as  civilians  say — i.  e. 
in  the  necessity  of  making  a  salutary  impres- 
sion upon  his  moral  government  ? 

That  the  veracity  of  God  requires  him  to 
execute  the  threatenings  of  his  law,  we  have 
already  shown.  But  why  do  we  find  such 
a  law  in  existence? — a  law  binding  him  to 
punish  sin?  " The  opposition  of  God's /«z^; 
to  sin,"  says  Symington,  is  "just  the  opposi- 
tion of  his  nature  to  sin ;  his  nature,  not  his 
will,  is  the  ultimate  standard  of  morality. 
His  determination  to  punish  sin  is  not  volun- 
tary^ but  necessary.  He  does  not  annex  a 
punishment  to  sin  because  he  ivills  to  do  so, 
but  because  his  nature  requires  it.  If  the 
whole  of  such  procedure  could  be  resolved 
into  mere  volition,  then  it  is  not  only  sup- 
posable  that  God  might  not  have  determined 
to  punish  sin,  but,  which  is  blasphemous, 
that  he  might  have  determined  to  reward  it. 
This  is  not  more  clearly  deducible  from  the 
nature  of  a  being  of  perfect  moral  excellence, 
than  plainly  taught  in  Scripture :  ^'He  ivill  by 
no  means  clear  the  guilty.  The  Lord  is  a 
jealous  God,  he  ivill  not  forgive  your  trans- 
gressions nor  your  sins.  Thou  art  not  a 
God  that  hath  pleasure  in  wickedness,  nei- 
ther shall  evil  dwell  with  thee.  God  is 
angry  with  the  wicked  every  day.     The 


126  ATONEMENT OLD  THEOLOGY. 

Lord  tvilltake  vengeance  on  his  adversaries, 
and  he  reserveth  wrath  for  his  enemies. 
Who  can  stand  before  his  indignation?  and 
ivho  can  abide  in  the  fierceness  of  his  anger? 
Is  God  unrighteous  who  taketh  vengeance? 
Our  God  is  a  consuming  fir e.^^  (Exod.  xxiv. 
7;  Josh.  xxiv.  19;  Ps.  v.  4;  vi.  11;  Neh.  i. 
2^^\  Rom.  iii.  5;  Heb.  xii.  29.)  We  may 
confidently  appeal  to  every  unprejudiced 
mind  whether  such  descriptions  as  these  do 
not  fully  bear  us  out  in  the  view  we  have 
taken  of  God's  retributive  justice.  And  if 
this  view  is  correct,  sin  cannot  go  unpunish- 
ed ;  it  cannot  be  pardoned  without  a  satis- 
faction; God  cannot  but  take  vengeance  on 
iniquity;  to  do  otherwise  would  be  to  violate 
the  perfection  of  his  nature.  Just  he  is,  and 
just  he  ever  must  be;  and  there  is  only  one 
way,  that  of  an  atoning  sacrifice,  by  which 
he  can  be  at  once  "  a  just  God  and  a  Sa- 
viour."— Symington  on  the  Atonement. 

If  the  only  reason  why  God  is  bound  to 
punish  sin  arises  from  the  effect  to  be  pro- 
duced upon  the  universe,  then  if  he  had  cre- 
ated no  other  inteUigent  beings  except  man, 
no  atonement  would  have  been  necessary — 
because  no  moral  beings  would  exist  upon 
whom  to  make  this  impression — and  of  course 
he  might  have  forgiven  us  irrespective  of  an 
atonement,  without  doing  any  injury  to  his 
government.  But  if  the  necessity  of  punish- 
ing sin  lies  primarily  in  his  nature,  diW  atone- 
ment would  be  as  necessary  for  the  redemp- 
tion of  a  single  sinner,  if  he  had  been  the 


VIEWS  OF  DR.  BELLAMY.  12T 

only  being  in  the  universe,  as  it  was  under 
the  circumstances  in  which  this  scheme  of 
mercy  was  devised.  And  this  we  beheve  to 
be  the  fact.  Otherwise  God  does  not  possess 
essentially,  that  holiness,  which  the  Scrip- 
tures represent  as.  constituting  the  glory  of 
his  character. 

If  then  the  question  be  asked,  why  is  God 
bound  to  punish  sin?  the  first  answer  is,  be- 
cause it  is  right — si7i  being  opposite  to  his 
nature — and  his  nature  therefore  requires 
him  to  manifest  towards  it  his  abhorrence. 
Is  the  question  repeated  ?  We  reply,  it  is  re- 
quired from  a  regard  to  his  law  and  govern- 
tnent.  Though  the  former  is  the  primary 
reason,  the  latter  is  of  great  importance,  and 
must  never  be  forgotten.  Taken  together, 
they  show  not  only  the  necessity  of  an  atone- 
ment in  order  to  the  pardon  of  sin,  but  that 
the  atonement  must  consist  in  a  substantial 
endurance  of  the  penalty  of  the  law.  On  any 
other  principle,  sin  goes  unpunished;  and  we 
are  driven  to  the  conclusion  before  adverted 
to,  that  God  is  not  "  glorious  in  holiness^'' — 
"  3,  just  God,^'  who  "  will  by  no  means  clear 
the  guilty." 

The  following  extract  froni  Dr.  Bellamy 
will  show  how  nearly  the  above  views  cor- 
respond with  the  sentiments  prevalent  in 
New  England  a  hundred  years  ago :  "  It  was 
fit,  if  any  intelligent  creature  should  at  any 
time  swerve  at  all  from  the  perfect  will  of 
God,  that  he  should  for  ever  lose  his  favour 
and  fall  under  his  everlasting  displeasure,  for 


12S  ATONEMENT — OLD  THEOLOGY. 

a  thing  so  infinitely  wrong:  and  in  such  a 
case  it  was  fit  the  Governor  of  the  world 
should  be  infinitely  displeased  and  pubhcly 
testify  his  infinite  displeasure  by  a  punish- 
ment adequate  thereto,  inflicted  on  the  sin- 
ning creature.  This  Avould  satisfy  justice; 
for  justice  is  satisfied  when  the  thing  which 
is  wrong  is  punished  according  to  its  desert. 
Hence,  it  was  fit,  when  by  a  constitution, 
holy,  just,  and  good,  Adam  was  made  a  pub- 
lic head,  to  represent  his  race,  and  act  not 
only  for  himself,  but  for  all  his  posterity;  it 
was  fit,  I  say,  that  he  and  all  his  race,  for  his 
first  transgression,  should  lose  the  favour,  and 
fall  under  the  everlasting  displeasure  of  the 
Almighty.  It  was  fit  that  God  should  be 
infinitely  displeased  at  so  abominable  a  thing 
— and  that  as  Governor  of  the  world,  he 
should  publicly  bear  testimony  against  it,  as 
an  infinite  evil,  by  inflicting  the  infinite  pun- 
ishment the  law  threatened;  i.  e.  by  damning 
the  whole  world.  This  would  have  satisfied 
justice;  for  justice  is  satisfied  when  justice 
takes  place — when  the  guihy  are  treated  with 
that  severity  they  ought  to  be — when  sin  is 
punished  as  being  what  it  is.  Now  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  has,  by  his  Father's 
appointment  and  approbation,  assumed  our 
nature — taken  the  place  of  a  guilty  world — 
and  had  not  only  Adam's  first  transgression, 
but  the  iniquities  of  us  all  laid  upon  him,  and 
in  our  room  and  stead,  hath  suflered  the 
wrath  of  God,  the  curse  of  the  law,  olfering 
up  himself  a  sacrifice  to  God  for  the  sins  of 


REMARKS  OF  BATES,  OWEN,  ETC.  129 

men:  and  hereby  the  infinite  evil  of  sin  and 
the  righteousness  of  the  law  are  piibhcly 
owned  and  acknowledged,  and  the  deserved 
punishment  voluntarily  submitted  unto  by 
man,  i.  e.  by  his  representative :  and  thus 
justice  is  satisfied ;  for  justice  is  satisfied 
when  justice  takes  place;  and  sin  is  now 
treated  as  being  what  it  is,  as  much  as  if  God 
had  damned  the  whole  world;  and  God,  as 
Governor,  appears  as  severe  against  it.  And 
thus  the  righteousness  of  God  is  declared  and 
manifested,  by  Christ's  being  set  forth  to  be  a 
propitiation  for  sin  ;  and  he  may  now  be  just 
and  yet  justify  him  that  believes  in  Jesus." 
—True  Religion  Delineated,  pp.  332,  333. 

Similar  to  the  views  here  expressed,  were 
those  of  the  early  European  divines.  "  There 
was  no  defect  in  the  payment  he  made.  We 
owed  a  debt  of  blood  to  the  law,  and  his  life 
was  offered  up  as  a  sacrifice ;  otherwise  the 
law  had  remained  in  its  full  vigour  and  justice 
had  been  unsatisfied.  That  a  Divine  person 
hath  suffered  our  punishment,  is  properly  the 

reason  of  our  redemption." "  The  blood 

of  Christ  shed,  (Matt.  xxvi.  28,)  poured  forth 
from  his  veins  and  offered  up  to  God,  in  that 
precise  consideration,  ratifies  the  New  Testa- 
ment. The  sum  is,  our  Saviour  by  his  death 
suffered  the  malediction  of  the  law,  and  his 
Divine  nature  gave  a  full  value  to  his  suffer- 
ings."   ''  And  God,  who  was  infinitely 

provoked,  is  infinitely  pleased." — Bates. 

"A  surety,  sponsor,  for  us,  the  Lord  Christ 
was,  by  his  voluntary  undertaking  out  of  his 


130  ATONEMENT — OLD  THEOLOGY. 

rich  grace  and  love,  to  do,  answer,  and  per- 
form all  that  is  required  on  our  parts,  that 
we  may  enjoy  the  benefits  of  the  covenant, 
the  grace  and  glory  prepared,  proposed,  and 
promised  in  it,  in  the  way  and  manner  deter- 
mined on  by  Divine  wisdom.  And  this  may 
be  reduced  unto  two  heads:  1.  His  answer- 
ing for  our  transgressions  against  the  first 
covenant.  2.  His  purchase  and  procurement 
of  the  grace  of  the  new.  "  He  was  made  a 
curse  for  us  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham 

might  come  upon  us."  Gal.  iii.  13 — 15 

"That  is,  he  underwent  the  ^punishment  due 
unto  our  sins,  to  make  atonement  for  us,  by 
offering  himself  a  propitiatory  sacrifice  for 
the  expiation  of  our  sins.^^ — Owen. 

"  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  who  believe  ia 
his  name  from  the  terrible  curse  of  the  law, 
and  bought  us  off  from  that  servitude  and 
misery  to  which  it  inexorably  doomed  us,  by 
being  himself  made  a  curse  for  us,  and  en- 
during the  penalty  which  our  sins  had 
deserved." — Doddridge. 

"  I  wonder  that  Jerome  and  Erasmus  should 
labour  and  seek  for  I  know  not  what  figure 
of  speech,  to  show  that  Christ  was  not  called 
accursed.  Truly  in  this  is  placed  all  our 
hope:  in  this  the  infinite  love  of  God  is  mani- 
fested: in  this  is  placed  our  salvation,  that 
God  properly  and  without  any  figure,  poured 
out  all  his  wrath  on  his  own  Son;  caused 
him  to  be  accursed,  that  he  might  receive  us 
into  his  favour.  Finally,  without  any  figure, 
Christ  was  made  a  curse  for  us,  in  such  a 


SCRIPTURE    PROOFS.  131 

manner  that  unless  he  had  been  truly  God, 
he  must  have  reaiained  under  the  curse  for- 
ever, from  which,  for  our  sakes,  he  emerged. 
For  indeed,  if  the  obedience  be  figurative 
and  imaginary,  so  must  our  hope  of  glory 
be/' — Beza,  as  quoted  by  Scott. 

These  several  quotations  all  proceed  on  the 
principle  that  the  necessity  of  the  atonement 
lay  primarily  in  the  nature  of  God:  that 
his  justice  must  be  appeased  by  a  true  and 
proper  satisfaction,  before  it  was  possible  for 
him  to  regard  sinners  with  favour;  and  that 
this  satisfaction  having  been  made  by  the 
vicarious  and  expiatory  sacrifice  of  Jesus 
Christ,  who  "hath  given  himself  for  us  an 
offering  and  a  sacrifice  to  God  for  a  sweet 
smelling  savour,"  pardon  and  salvation  are 
freely  bestowed  upon  believing  sinners,  in 
perfect  harmony  with  all  the  Divine  attri- 
butes. With  the  work  which  Christ  per- 
formed, God  the  Father  was  infinitely  well 
pleased;  and  through  him  he  looks  with 
complacency  upon  all  who  are  united  to  him 
by  faith.  He  was  well  pleased,  because 
Christ  performed  all  that  law  and  justice 
required — for,  as  Bellamy  observes,  "justice 
is  satisfied  when  justice  takes  place."  "I 
have  finished  the  work,"  said  Christ,  "which 
thou  gavest  me  to  do."  And  again,  just 
before  he  expired  he  said,  "  It  is  finished." 
His  work  of  active  obedience  was  finished 
when  he  uttered  the  first ;  and  when  he  spake 
the  last,  his  work  of  suffering  was  also  com- 
pleted.    We  behold  him  now  as  "  the  Lamb 


132  SCRIPTURE    PROOFS. 

of  God/'  sacrificed  to  propitiate  the  Divine 
favour;  John  i.  29:  sls  "the propitiation  for 
our  sins;"  1  John  ii.  2:  as  a  " sin-offer ing^' 
presented  to  God  for  a  sacrifice  of  expiation; 
2  Cor.  V.  21,  Gr.:  as  "a  ransom,"  or  redemp- 
tion-price, to  "redeem  us  from  the  curse  of 
the  law;"  Malt.  xx.  28;  Gal.  iii.  13:  as  "the 
man,  God's  fellow ;"  "  on  whom  was  laid  the 
iniquity  of  us  all;"  who  "bare  our  sins  in  his 
own  body  on  the  tree;"  Zech.  xiii.  7;  Isa. 
hii.  6;  1  Pet.  ii.  24:  as,  in  fine,  both  the 
offering  and  the  priest,  who  having  "appear- 
ed to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  him- 
self," "oifered  himself  without  spot  to  God," 
and,  "  by  his  own  blood,  entered  into  the 
holy  place,  having  obtained  eternal  redemp- 
tion for  us;"  Heb.  ix.  12,  14,  26.  How- 
explicit  are  these  passages  with  regard  to  the 
nature  of  Christ's  sufferings.  If  Christ  did 
not  offer  himself  a  sacrifice  for  our  sins;  if  he 
did  not  endure  substantially  the  penalty  of 
the  law  in  order  to  make  satisfaction  to  Di- 
vine justice  in  behalf  of  those  who  should 
believe  in  him,  we  know  not  how  to  inter- 
pret the  plainest  language.  So  clearly  is  this 
doctrine  taught,  and  so  adapted  is  it  to 
remedy  the  guilt  and  misery  of  our  fallen 
condition,  that  we  doubt  whether  a  mind 
truly  enlightened  can  fail  to  perceive  it,  or 
an  awakened  conscience  be  insensible  to  its 
value.  In  view  of  it,  I  am  disposed  to  ex- 
claim with  grateful  emotions,  "0  Lord,  I  will 
praise  thee:  though  thou  wast  angry  w4th 
me,  thine  anger  is  turned  away,  and  thou 


JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH.  133 

comfortest  me."  "  God  is  in  Clirist  recon- 
ciling the  world  unto  himself,  not  imputing 
their  trespasses  unto  them."  "  Whosoever 
believeth  on  Him  shall  not  be  confounded." 

"  With  joy,  with  grief,  that  healing  hand  I  see; 
Alas!  how  low !  how  far  beneath  the  skies  ! 
The  skies  it  formed,  and  now  it  bleeds  for  me — 
But  bleeds  the  balm  I  want — 
There  hangs  all  human  hope ;  that  nail  supports 
The  falling  universe  :  that  gone,  we  drop ; 
Horror  receives  us,  and  the  dismal  wish 
Creation  had  been  smothered  in  her  birth." 


CHAPTER  VI. 

JUSTIFICATION — A  CONTINUATION  OF  THE  rRECEDING  CHAPTER. 

Intimately  connected  with  the  doctrine  of 
atonement,  is  that  of  justification.  The  dif- 
ferent views,  therefore,  with  regard  to  the 
former,  which  have  been  exhibited  in  the  last 
chapter,  will  give  a  corresponding  complexion 
to  our  sentiments  concerning  the  latter.  Those 
who  maintain  that  Christ  obeyed  the  law  and 
suffered  its  penalty  in  our  stead,  and  thereby 
made  a  true  and  proper  satisfaction  to  Divine 
justice,  believe  that  his  obedience  and  suffer- 
ings, constituting  what  is  usually  styled  his 
righteousness,  are  imputed  to  the  believer  for 
his  justification;  Christ's  righteousness  being 
received  by  faith  as  the  instrument.  Accord- 


134  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH. 

ingly  justification  consists  not  only  in  the 
pardon  of  sin,  or  in  other  words,  in  the  re- 
lease of  the  beheving  sinner  from  punish- 
ment ;  but  also  in  the  acceptance  of  his  person 
as  righteous  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  through 
the  obedience  of  Christ  reckoned  or  imputed 
to  him;  by  which  he  has  a  title  to  eternal 
life. 

On  the  contrary,  those  who  deny  that  Christ 
obeyed  the  law  and  suffered  its  penalty  as  our 
substitute,  deny  also  the  imputation  of  his 
righteousness  for  our  justification;  and  though 
they  retain  the  word,  justification,  they  make 
it  consist  in  mere  pardon.^  In  the  eye  of  the 
law,  the  believer,  according  to  their  views,  is 
not  justified  at  all,  and  never  will  be  through 
eternity.  Though  on  the  ground  of  what 
Christ  has  done,  God  is  pleased  Xofoi^give  the 
sinner  upon  his  believing;  Christ's  righteous- 
ness IS  not  reckoned  in  any  sense  as  his,  or 
set  down  to  his  account.  He  believes,  and 
his  faith,  or  act  of  believing'  is  accounted  to 
him  for  righteousness;  that  is,  faith  is  so  reck- 
oned to  his  account,  that  God  treats  him  as 
if  he  were  righteous. 

*  "  The  pardon  of  sin  alone  can  with  no  propriety  be 
denominated  justification.  Pardon  and  justification  are 
not  only  distinct,  but  in  common  cases,  utterly  incom- 
patible. A  culprit  tried  and  condemned  may  among  men 
be  pardoned,  but  it  would  be  a  solecism  to  say,  that  such 
a  man  was  justified."  ....  "  But  by  the  plan  of  salvation 
through  Christ  there  is  not  only  a  ground  for  pardon,  but 
there  is  rendered  to  the  law  a  righteousness,  which  lays 
the  foundation  for  an  act  of  justification.  By  pardon  the 
sinner  is  freed  from  condemnation,  by  justification  he  is 
entitled  to  the  heavenly  inheritance." — Dr.  Alexander. 


VIEWS  OP  LUTHER.  135 

That  the  views  first  given  accord  with  the 
general  sentiments  of  the  church  since  the 
Reformation  is  capable  of  abundant  proof. 
Though  in  the  time  of  the  Reformers  the 
opponents  of  the  true  doctrine  did  not  take 
the  same  ground,  in  every  respect,  which  has 
been  taken  since,  and  which  is  described  in 
the  statement  just  made  concerning  the  views 
entertained  by  the  advocates  of  the  New 
Theology;  in  one  particular  they  are  all 
agreed,  viz:  in  rejecting  the  imputation  of 
Christ's  righteousness;  the  adoption  or  denial 
of  which  is  the  basis  of  all  the  other  differ- 
ences that  exist  on  this  subject.  To  this  doc- 
trine, therefore,  the  Reformers  clung,  as  the 
sheet-anchor  of  the  Christian  faith.  Justifi- 
cation by  faith,  through  the  imputed  right- 
eousness of  Christ — this  was  their  doctrine. 
And  so  important  did  they  regard  it,  that 
Luther  was  accustomed  to  denominate  it,  (as 
is  well  known,)  articulus  stantis  vel  caden- 
tis  ecclesise;  the  very  pillar  on  which  the 
church  rests;  a  denial  of  which  must  result 
in  her  ruin.  The  manner  in  which  his  mind 
was  brought  to  entertain  clear  views  on  this 
subject  is  highly  interesting.  "  Three  days 
and  three  nights  together  he  lay  upon  his 
bed  without  meat,  drink,  or  any  sleep,  like  a 
dead  man,  (as  some  do  write  of  him,)  labour- 
ing in  soul  and  spirit  upon  a  certain  place  of 
St.  Paul  in  the  third  chapter  of  the  Romans, 
"to  declare  his  righteousness,"  [or  justice,] 
thinking  Christ  to  be  sent  for  no  other  end 
but  to  show  forth  God's  justice,  as  an  execu- 


136  JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH. 

tor  of  his  law;  till  at  length  being  assured 
and  satisfied  by  the  Lord,  touching  the  right 
meaning  of  these  words,  signifying  the  jus- 
tice of  God  to  be  executed  upon  his  Son  to 
save  us  from  the  stroke  thereof,  he  imme- 
diately upon  the  same,  started  up  from  his 
bed,  so  confirmed  in  faith,  as  nothing  after- 
wards could  appal  him." — Life  of  Luther, 
prefixed  to  his  Commentary  on  the  Galatians. 
The  following  extracts  from  Owen  on  Jus- 
tification will  show  the  nature  of  the  contro- 
versy soon  after  the  Reformation.  "  There 
are  two  grand  parties  by  whom  the  doctrine 
of  justification  by  the  imputation  of  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  is  opposed,  namely,  the 
Papists  and  the  Socinians.  But  they  proceed 
on  different  principles,  and  unto  diflferent 
ends.  The  design  of  the  one  is  to  exalt  their 
own  merits ;  of  the  other,  to  destroy  the  me- 
rit of  Christ." "  Those  of  the  Roman 

church  plainly  say,  that  upon  the  infusion  of 
a  habit  of  grace,  with  the  expulsion  of  sin 
and  the  renovation  of  our  natures  thereby, 
which  they  call  the  first  justification,  we  are 
actually  justified  before  God,  by  our  own 

works  of  righteousness." They  say, 

^  that  this  righteousness  of  Avorks  is  not  abso- 
lutely perfect,  nor  in  itself  able  to  justify  us 
in  the  sight  of  God,  but  owes  all  its  worth 
and  dignity  unto  this  purpose  unto  the  merit 
of  Christ.'  ......  But  ^  Christ  hath  only  me- 
rited the  first  grace  for  us,  that  we  therewith, 

and  thereby,  may  merit  life  eternal.' 

Hence  '  those  other  ingredients  of  confession, 


EXTRACTS  FROM  OWEN.  137 

absolution,  penances  or  commutations,  aids 
from  saints  and  angels,  especially  the  blessed 
Virgin,  all  warmed  by  the  fire  of  purgatory, 
and  confidently  administered  unto  persons 

sick  of  ignorance,  darkness  and  sin.' 

"The  Socinians,who  expressly  oppose  the  im- 
putation of  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  plead 
for  a  participation  of  its  effects  or  benefits 

only." "He  [Socinus]  supposeth,  that 

if  all  he  did  in  a  way  of  obedience,  was  due 
from  himself  on  his  own  account,  and  was 
only  the  duty  Avhich  he  owed  unto  God  for 
himself  in  his  station  and  circumstances,  as  a 
man  in  this  world,  it  cannot  be  meritorious 
for  us,  nor  any  way  imputed  unto  us.  And 
in  like  manner  to  weaken  the  doctrine  of  his 
satisfaction,  and  the  imputation  thereof  unto 
us,  he  contends  that  Christ  offered  as  a  priest 
for  himself,  in  that  kind  of  offering  which  he 
made  on  the  cross." "  Hereby  he  ex- 
cludes the  church  from  any  benefit  by  the 
mediation  of  Christ,  but  only  what  consists 
in  his  doctrine,  example,  and  the  exercise  of 
his  power  in  heaven  for  our  good." 

"  We  grant  an  inherent  righteousness  in  all 
that  do  believe."  ...."'  For  the  fruit  of  the 
Spirit  is  in  all  goodness  and  righteousness  and 
truth.'  Eph.  V.  9.  *  Being  made  free  from 
sin,  we  became  the  servants  of  righteous- 
ness,' Rom.  vi.  18.  And  our  duty  it  is  to 
*  follow  after  righteousness,  godliness,  faith, 
love,  meekness.'  1  Tim.  ii.  22."  ....  "But 
although  this  righteousness  of  believers  be  on 
other  accounts  like  the  fruit  of  the  vine,  that 
12 


138  EIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST. 

glads  the  heart  of  God  and  man,  yet  as  unto 
our  justification  before  God,  it  is  like  the 
wood  of  the  vine — a  pin  is  not  to  be  taken 
from  it  to  hang  any  weight  of  this  cause 
upon."  ....  "That  righteousness  which  nei- 
ther answereth  the  law  of  God,  nor  the  end 
of  God  in  our  justification  by  the  gospel,  is 
not  that  whereon  we  are  justified.  Bat  such 
is  this  inherent  righteousness  of  believers, 
even  of  the  best  of  them."  .  ..."  It  is  imper- 
fect with  respect  unto  every  act  and  duty  of 
it,  whether  internal  or  external.  There  is 
iniquity  cleaving  unto  our  holy  things,  and 
all  our  ^righteousnesses  are  as  filthy  rags.' 
Isa.  Ixiv.  6." 

"  That  which  is  imputed  is  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ;  and  briefly  I  understand  here- 
by, his  whole-obedience  unto  God  in  all  that 
he  did  and  suffered  for  the  Church.  This  I 
say  is  imputed  unto  believers,  so  as  to  become 
their  only  righteousness  before  God  unto  the 
justification  of  life."  ....  "The  judgment  of 
the  reformed  churches  herein  is  known  unto 
all."  .  .  .  .  "  Especially  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land is  in  her  doctrine  express  as  unto  the 
imputation  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
both  active  and  passive,  as  it  is  usually  dis- 
tinguished. This  hath  been  of  late  so  fully 
manifested  out  of  her  authentic  writings,  that 
is,  the  articles  of  religion,  and  books  of  homi- 
lies, and  other  writings  publicly  authorized, 
that  it  is  altogether  needless  to  give  any  fur- 
ther demonstration  of  it."  .  .  .  .  "  The  law 
hath  two  parts  or  powers;  1.  Its  preceptive 


EXTRACTS  FROM  OWEN.  189 

part 2.  The  sanction  on  supposition  of 

disobedience,  binding  the  sinner  unto  punish- 
ment.^'   "  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  fulfilled 

the  whole  law  for  us;  he  did  not  only  under- 
go the  penalty  of  it  due  unto  our  sins,  but 
also  yielded  that  perfect  obedience  which  it 
did  require."  ....  "Christ's  fulfilling  the  law 
in  obedience  unto  its  commands,  is  no  less 
imputed  unto  us  for  our  justification,  than  his 
undergoing  the  penalty  of  it  is."  .  .  .  .  "  For 
why  was  it  necessary,  or  why  would  God 
have  it  so,  that  the  Lord  Christ,  as  the  surety 
of  the  covenant,  should  undergo  the  curse 
and  penalty  of  the  law,  which  we  had  incur- 
red the  guilt  of,  by  sin,  that  we  may  be  justi- 
fied in  his  sight  ?  Was  it  not  that  the  glory 
and  honour  of  his  righteousness,  as  the  au- 
thor of  the  law,  and  the  Supreme  Governor 
of  all  mankind  thereby,  might  not  be  violated 
in  the  absolute  impunity  of  the  infringers  of 
it?  And  if  it  was  requisite  unto  the  glory  of 
God,  that  the  penalty  of  the  law  should  be 
undergone  for  us,  or  suffered  by  our  surety 
in  our  stead,  because  we  had  sinned;  where- 
fore is  it  not  as  requisite  unto  the  glory  of 
God,  that  the  preceptive  part  of  the  law  be 
complied  withal  for  us,  inasmuch  as  obedi- 
ence thereunto  is  required  of  us  ?  And  as  we 
are  no  more  able  of  ourselves  to  fulfil  the 
law,  in  a  way  of  obedience,  than  to  undergo 
the  penalty  of  it,  so  as  that  we  may  be  justi- 
fied thereby;  so  no  reason  can  be  given,  why 
God  is  not  as  much  concerned  in  honour  and 
glory,  that  the  preceptive  power  and  part  of 


140  RIGHTEOUSNESS  OF  CHRIST. 

the  law  be  complied  withal  by  perfect  obedi- 
ence, as  that  the  sanction  of  it  be  established 
by  undergoing  its  penalty."  .  .  .  .  "  The  con- 
science of  a  convinced  sinner,  Avho  presents 
himself  in  the  presence  of  God,  finds  all  prac- 
tically reduced  unto  this  one  point,  viz :  whe- 
ther he  will  trust  unto  his  own  personal 
inherent  righteousness,  or  in  a  full  renuncia- 
tion of  it,  betake  himself  unto  the  grace  of 
God,  and  the  righteousness  of  Christ  alone." 
.  .  .  .  "  The  latter  is  the  true  and  only  relief 
of  distressed  consciences,  of  sinners  who  are 

weary  and  heavy  laden that  which  alone 

they  may  oppose  unto  the  sentence  of  the 
law,  and  interpose  between  God's  justice  and 
their  souls,  wherein  they  may  take  shelter 
from  the  storms  of  that  wrath  which  abideth 
on  them  that  believe  not." 

These  views  of  Owen  accord  with  the  doc- 
trine of  our  Confession  of  Faith  and  with  the 
sentiments  of  other  standard  writers.  The 
language  of  our  Confession  is  as  follows: 
"Those  whom  God  effectually  calleth,  he 
also  freely  justifieth;  not  by  infusing  right- 
eousness into  them,  but  by  pardoning  their 
sins,  and  by  accounting  and  accepting  their 
persons  as  righteous,  not  for  any  thing 
wrought  in  them,  or  done  by  them,  but  for 
Christ's  sake  alone:  not  by  imputing  faith 
itself,  the  act  of  believing,  or  any  other  evan- 
gelical obedience  to  them,  as  their  righteous- 
ness; but  by  imputing  the  obedience  and 
satisfaction  of  Christ  unto  them,  they  receiv- 
ing and  resting  on  him  and  his  righteousness 


VIEWS  OF  CALVIN.  141 

by  faith."  Says  Calvin,  "  He  is  said  to  be 
justified  in  the  sight  of  God,  who  in  the 
Divine  judgment  is  reputed  righteous,  and 
accepted  on  account  of  his  righteousness."  . . . 
"He  must  be  said,  therefore,  to  hQ  justified 
by  works,  whose  hfe  discovers  such  purity 
and  hohness  as  to  deserve  the  character  of 
righteousness  before  the  throne  of  God ;  or 
who,  by  the  integrity  of  his  works,  can  answer 
and  satisfy  the  Divine  judgment.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  will  be  justified  by  faith, 
who  being  excluded  from  the  righteousness 
of  works,  apprehends  by  faith  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ,  invested  in  which  he  appears 
in  the  sight  of  God,  not  as  a  sinner,  but  as  a 
righteous  man.  Thus  we  simply  explain 
justification  to  be  an  acceptance  by  which 
God  receives  into  his  favour  and  esteems  us 
as  righteous  persons;  and  we  say  that  it  con- 
sists in  the  remission  of  sins  and  the  impu- 
tation of  Christ's  righteousness." — Calvin's 
Institutes,  vol.  2,  pp.  203,  204. 

These  remarks,  let  it  be  remembered,  refer 
to  our  relation  to  God  in  point  of  law.  "Im- 
putation is  never  represented  as  affecting  the 
moral  character,  but  merely  the  relation  of 
men  to  God  and  his  law.  To  impute  sin,  is 
to  regard  and  treat  as  a  sinner;  and  to  im- 
pute righteousness  is  to  regard  and  treat  as 
righteous." — Hodge  on  the  Romans,  pp.  225, 
226.  Though  personally  considered,  we  are 
sinners,  and  as  such  wholly  undeserving, 
yet  when  we  are  united  to  Christ  by  faith, 
his  righteousness  is  so  imputed  to  us  or  reck- 


142  BIGHTEOUSNESS  OP  CHRIST. 

oned  in  law  to  our  account,  that  God  re- 
gards and  treats  us  as  righteous — "  the  right- 
eousness of  the  law  being''  considered  as 
"fulfilled  in  us/'  because  Christ  has  fulfilled 
it  for  us.  It  is  therefore  no  ground  for  self- 
complacency,  but  of  humiliation  and  grati- 
tude. 

With  reference  to  those  to  whom  Christ's 
righteousness  is  imputed  for  their  justifica- 
tion our  standards  S3.y,  "Yet  inasmuch  as 
he  [Christ]  was  given  by  the  Father  for  them, 
and  his  obedience  and  satisfaction  accepted 
in  their  stead,  and  both  freely,  not  for  any 
thing  in  them,  their  justification  is  only  of 
free  grace ;  that  both  the  exact  justice  and 
rich  grace  of  God  might  be  glorified  in  the 
justification  of  sinners."  Thus,  according  to 
this  view  of  the  doctrine,  justice  and  mercy  are 
harmoniously  and  sweetly  blended.  While 
the  sinner  is  saved  without  conflicting  with 
the  claims  of  God's  law,  it  is  "all  to  the 
praise  of  his  glorious  grace."  We  have  other 
quotations  to  make  on  this  subject,  but  shall 
reserve  them  until  we  present  a  few  speci- 
mens of  the  New  Theology. 

Says  Mr.  Finney,  "  Gospel  justification  is 
not  by  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ. 
Under  the  gospel,  sinners  are  not  justified  by 
having  the  obedience  of  Jesus  Christ  set  down 
to  their  account,  as  if  he  had  obeyed  the  law 
for  them  or  in  their  stead.  It  is  not  an  uncom- 
mon mistake  to  suppose  that  when  sinners 
are  justified  under  the  gospel  they  are  ac- 
counted righteous  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  by 


SPECIMENS  OF  NEW  VIEWS.  143 

having  the  obedience  or  righteousness  of 
Christ  imputed  to  them.  I  have  not  time  to 
go  into  an  examination  of  this  subject  now. 
I  can  only  say  that  this  idea  is  absurd  and 
impossible,  for  the  reason  that  Jesus  Ciirist 
was  bound  to  obey  the  law  for  himself,  and 
could  no  more  perform  works  of  supereroga- 
tion, or  obey  on  our  account,  than  any  body 
else."*  .  .  .  .  "  Abraham's  faith  was  imput- 
ed to  him  for  righteousness,  because  it  was 
itself  an  act  of  righteousness,  and  because  it 
worked  by  love,  and  therefore  produced  holi- 
ness. Justifying  faith  is  holiness,  so  far  as  it 
goes,  and  produces  holiness  of  heart  and  life, 
and  is  imputed  to  the  believer  as  holiness, 
not  instead  of  holiness," — Lectures  to  Pro- 
fessing Christians,  pp.  215,  216. 

Mr.  Barnes  says,  "  The  phrase  righteous- 
ness of  God  is  equivalent  to  God^s  plan  of 
justifying  men^^ — in  regard  to  which  he  ob- 
serves, "  It  is  not  that  his  righteousness  be- 
comes owr^.  This  is  not  true;  and  there  is 
no  intelligible  sense  in  which  that  can  be  un- 
derstood. But  it  is  God's  plan  for  pardon- 
ing sin,  and  for  treating  us  as  if  we  had 
not  committed  it." — Notes  on  the  Romans, 
pp.  28,  29.  Again,  (p.  94,)  in  reference  to 
the  phrase,  "  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it 
was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness,"  he 
remarks,  "The  Avord  'it'  here,  evidently  re- 
fers to  the  act  of  believing.     //  does  not  re- 


*  This  is  a  Socinian  objection;  and  on  Socinian  princi- 
ples it  is  valid ;  but  if  Christ  be  Divine^  it  iiaa  no  force. 


144  JUSTIFICATION — NEW  THEOLOGY. 

fer  to  the  righteousness  of  another — of  God 
or  of  the  Messiah;  but  the  discussion  is  sole- 
ly of  the  strong  act  of  Abraham's  faith, 
which  in  some  sense  was  counted  to  him  for 
righteousness.  In  what  sense  this  was,  is 
explained  directly  after.  All  that  is  material 
to  remark  here  is,  that  the  act  of  Abraham, 
the  strong  confidence  of  his  mind  in  the  pro- 
mises of  God,  his  unwavering  assurance  that 
what  God  had  promised  he  would  perform, 
w^as  reckoned  for  righteousness.  The  same 
thing  is  more  fully  expressed,  verse  18,22. 
When,  therefore,  it  is  said  that  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  is  accounted  or  imputed  to  us  ; 
when  it  is  said  that  his  merits  are  transferred 
and  reckoned  as  ours;  whatever  may  be  the 
truth  of  the  doctrine,  it  cannot  be  defended  by 
this  passage  of  Scripture.  Faith  is  always 
an  act  of  them.iud."  ....  '^  God  promises  ; 
the  man  believes;  and  this  is  the  whole  of 
it.^^  It  is  manifest  that  Mr.  Barnes  intend- 
ed in  these  passages  to  deny  that  we  are 
justified  by  the  imputation  of  Christ's  right- 
eousness; and  with  regard  to  the  manner  in 
which  we  «re  justified,  he  is  directly  at  vari- 
ance with  the  Confession  of  Faith.  He 
teaches  that  the  act  of  believing  is  imputed 
for  righteousness;  and  the  Confession  of  Faith 
declares  expressly  to  the  contrary — "not  by 
imputing  faith  itself,  the  act  of  believing,  or 
any  other  evangelical  obedience  to  them,  as 
their  righteousness."  The  Contession  teaches 
moreover  that  we  are  justified  on  principles 
of  law  and  justice,  as  well  as  of  grace  and 


JUSTIFICATION — NEW  THEOLOGY.  145 

mercy — all  of  them  harmoniously  meeting  to- 
gether in  the  cross  of  Christ.  He  intimates 
that  legal  principles  have  nothing  to  do  in 
the  matter.  "  It  [Rom.  i.  17,]  does  not  touch 
the  question,  whether  it  is  by  imputed  right- 
eousness or  not ;  it  does  not  say  that  it  is  on 
legal  principles.'^ — Notes  on  the  Romans,  p. 
28.  This  sentence,  though  it  does  not  amount 
to  a  positive  denial,  was  designed,  we  have 
no  doubt,  to  convey  this  idea.  Similar  forms 
of  expression  often  occur  in  this  volume, 
where  it  is  evident  from  the  connexion,  he 
means  to  be  understood  as  denying  the  doc- 
trine. 

The  New  Haven  divines  appear  to  enter- 
tain the  same  sentiments;  as  the  following 
from  the  Christian  Spectator  will  serve  to 
show:  "What  then  is  the  ground  on  which 
the  penitent  sinner  is  pardoned  ?  It  is  not  that 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  of  the  nature  of 
punishment ;  for  being  innocent,  he  had  no 
sins  of  his  own  to  be  punished  for;  and  as  he 
was  a  distinct  being  from  us,  he  could  not 
be  strictly  punished  for  ours.'^  .  ..."  It  is 
not  that  by  his  death  he  satisfied  the  penal 
justice  of  God ;  for  if  he  did,  punishment  could 
not  be  equitably  inflicted  on  sinners,  whether 
penitent  or  not.  Nor  indeed  is  it  that  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  to  those 
who  are  pardoned,  either  as  a  personal  quali- 
ty, or  in  such  a  manner  as  to  be  accounted  to 
them  as  if  it  were  theirs.  Nothing  can  be 
imputed  but  that  which  is  their  own  person- 
13 


146  JUSTIFICATION — NEW  THEOLOGY. 

al  attribute  or  act.  Hence,  though  Dr.  B.* 
does  in  one  place  speak  of  the  imputation  of 
Christ's  righteousness  to  beHevers,  he  obvi- 
ously refers  not  to  its  transfer,  but  to  the  enjoy- 
ment of  its  consequences ;  and  he  more  com- 
monly speaks  'of  faith,' a  personal  quality 
of  the  saints,  'as  imputed  for  righteousness.' 
What  then  is  the  ground  on  which  forgive- 
ness is  bestowed  ?  It  is  simply  this,  that  the 
death  of  Christ  removed  the  difficulties  which 
would  otherwise  have  eternally  barred  the 
exercise  of  pardoning  mercy." — Christian 
Spectator,  September,  1830. 

How  radically  different  are  these  senti- 
ments from  the  doctrine  of  justification  as 
held  by  most  evangelical  churches!  If  they 
are  scriptural,  then  multitudes  of  Christians 
have  mistaken  the  way  of  salvation.  But  if 
they  are  erroneous,  (as  we  believe  them  to 
be,)  then  those  who  embrace  them  have  rea- 
son to  examine  anew  the  foundation  of  their 
hopes  for  eternity.  The  two  systems  can 
never  be  made  to  harmonize  with  each  other. 
If  the  one  is  scriptural,  the  other  must  fall; 
and  they  involve  points  which  affect  so  seri- 
ously the  great  and  everlasting  interests  of 
man,  that  no  one  ought  to  be  indifferent  with 
regard  to  them.  Indifference  here  would  be 
highly  criminal. 

*  The  person  referred  to  here  is  not  Dr.  Eeman ;  but  if 
one  will  turn  to  Beman  on  the  Atonement,  p.  51,  he  will 
perceive  that  most  of  what  is  here  said  is  more  applicable 
to  him  than  to  Dr.  Bellamy,  whom  it  is  believed  the  re- 
viewer has  treated  unfairly.  See  quotations  from  Dr. 
Bellamy  in  subsequent  pages. 


JUSTIFICATION — BATES BELLAMY.         1 47 

For  the  purpose  of  showing  how  fully  the 
Old  Theology  on  this  subject  accords  with 
the  general  voice  of  the  church  since  the 
Reformation,  we  shall  introduce  a  few  addi- 
tional quotations. 

Bates. — "  There  are  but  two  ways  of  ap- 
pearing before  the  righteous  and  Supreme 
Judge:  1.  In  sinless  obedience Who- 
ever presumes  to  appear  before  God's  judg- 
ment-seat, in  his  own  righteousness,  shall  be 
covered  with  confusion.  2.  By  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ.  This  alone  absolves  from 
the  guilt  of  sin,  saves  from  hell,  and  can 
endure  the  trial  of  God's  tribunal.  This  the 
Apostle  prized  as  his  invaluable  treasure 
(Phil.  iii.  9,)  in  comparison  of  which  "a// 
other  things  are  but  dross  and  dung,  that  I 
may  be  found  in  him,  not  having  mine  own 
righteousness,  which  is  of  the  law,  but  that 
which  is  through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the 
righteousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith."  That 
which  he  ordained  and  rewarded  in  the  per- 
son of  our  Redeemer,  he  cannot  but  accept. 
Now  this  righteousness  is  meritoriously 
imputed  to  believers.^^- — Harmony  of  the  Di- 
vine Attributes,  p.  298,  299. 

Bellamy. — "  'Ej  the  first  covenant,  the  con- 
stitution with  Adam,  his  perfect  obedience 
through  his  appointed  time  of  trial,  would, 
by  virtue  of  that  constitution  or  covenant, 
have  entitled  us  to  everlasting  life.  By  the 
second  covenant,  the  perfect  righteousness  of 
Christ,  the  second  Adam,  entitles  all  true 
believers  to  everlasting  life,  by  and  according 


148  JUSTIFICATION EDWARDS. 

to  this  new  and  living  way.  A  perfect 
righteousness  was  necessary  according  to  the 
law  of  nature,  and  a  perfect  righteousness  is 
insisted  upon  in  both  covenants.  According 
to  the  law  of  nature,  it  was  to  be  performed 
personally ;  but  according  to  both  covenants, 
it  is  appointed  to  be  performed  by  a  public 
head.  According  to  the  first  covenant  we 
were  to  have  been  interested  in  the  righteous- 
ness of  our  public  head,  by  virtue  of  our 
union  to  him  as  his  posterity,  for  whom  he 
was  appointed  to  act.  According  to  the 
second  covenant,  we  are  interested  in  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  our  public  head,  by 
virtue  of  our  union  to  him  by  faith.^' — True 
Religion  Delineated,  p.  421,  422. 

Edwards. — "It  is  absolutely  necessary,  that 
in  order  to  a  sinner's  being  justified,  the 
righteousness  of  some  other  should  be  reckon- 
ed to  his  account ;  for  it  is  declared  that  the 
person  justified  is  looked  upon  as  (in  him- 
self) ungodly;  but  God  neither  will  nor  can 
justify  a  person  without  a  righteousness;  for 
justification  is  manifestly  a  forensic  term,  as 
the  word  is  used  in  Scripture,  and  a  judicial 
thing,  or  the  act  of  a  judge.  So  that  if  a  per- 
son should  be  justified  without  a  righteous- 
ness, the  judgment  would  not  be  according 
to  truth.  The  sentence  of  justification  would 
be  a  false  sentence,  unless  there  be  a  right- 
eousness performed,  that  is  by  the  judge 
properly  looked  upon  as  his.  To  say  that 
God  does  not  justify  the  sinner  without  sin- 
cere, though  an  imperfect  obedience,  does 


JUSTIFICATION — EDWARDS.  149 

not  help  the  case;  for  an  imperfect  righteous- 
ness before  a  judge  is  no  righteousness.'' 

"  God  doth  in  the  sentence  of  justification 
pronounce  a  sinner  perfectly  righteous,  or 
else  he  would   need   a  further  justification 

after  he  is  justified.'' "By  that  [Christ's] 

righteousness  being  imputed  to  us,  is  meant 
no  other  than  this,  that  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  is  accepted  for  us,  and  admitted  instead 
of  that  perfect  inherent  righteousness  which 
ought  to  be  in  ourselves.  Christ's  perfect 
obedience  shall  be  reckoned  to  our  account, 
so  that  we  shall  have  the  benefit  of  it,  as 
though  we  had  performed  it  ourselves.  And 
so  we  suppose  that  a  title  to  eternal  life  is 
given  us  as  the  reward  of  this  righteousness." 

"There  is  the  very  same  need  of  Christ's 

obeying  the  law  in  our  stead,  in  order  to  the 
reward,  as  of  his  suffering  the  penalty  of  the 
law  in  our  stead,  in  order  to  our  escaping 
the  penalty;  and  the  same  reason  why  one 
should  be  accepted  on  our  account,  as  the 

other." "  Faith  justifies,  or  gives  an 

interest  in  Christ's  satisfaction  and  merits, 
and  a  right  to  the  benefits  procured  thereby, 
as  it  thus  makes  Christ  and  the  believer  one 
in  the  acceptance  of  the  Supreme  Judge."  . . . 
"  What  is  real  in  the  union  between  Christ 
and  his  people,  is  the  foundation  of  what  is 
legal;  that  is,  it  is  something  really  in  them, 
and  between  them,  uniting  them,  that  is  the 
ground  of  the  suitableness  of  their  being 
accounted  as  one  by  the  judge."  ....  "God 
does  not  give  those  that  believe,  an  union 


150  JUSTIFICATION EDWARDS. 

with  or  an  interest  in  the  Saviour  as  a  reward 
for  faith,  but  only  because  faith  is  the  soul's 
active  uniting  with  Christ,  or  is  itself  the 
very  act  of  union,  on  their  part.  "^^ 

Concerning  the  opinion  of  those  who  be- 
Ueve  justification  to  be  nothing  more  than 
pardon,  he  observes:  "Some  suppose  that 
nothing  more  is  intended  in  Scripture  by  jus- 
tification than  barely  the  remission  of  sins. 
If  so,  it  is  very  strange,  if  we  consider  tlie 
nature  of  the  case;  for  it  is  most  evident,  and 
none  will  deny,  that  it  is  with  respect  to  the 
rule  or  law  of  God,  we  are  under,  that  we 
are  said  in  Scripture  to  be  either  justified  or 
condemned.  Now  what  is  it  to  justify  a  per- 
son as  the  subject  of  a  laio  or  rule,  but  to 
judge  him  as  standing  right  with  respect  to 
that  rule?  To  justify  a  person  in  a  particu- 
lar case,  is  to  approve  of  him  as  standing 
right,  as  subject  to  the  law  in  that  case ;  and 
to  justify  in  general,  is  to  pass  him  in  judg- 
ment, as  standing  right  in  a  state  corres- 
pondent to  the  law  or  rule  in  general;  but 
certainly,  in  order  to  a  person's  being  looked 
on  as  standing  right  with  respect  to  the  rule 
in  general,  or  in  a  state  corresponding  with 
the  law  of  God,  more  is  needful  than  not 
having  the  guilt  of  sin;  for  whatever  that  law 
is,  whether  a  new  or  an  old  one,  doubtless 
something  positive  is  needed  in  order  to  its 
being  answered.  We  are  no  more  justified 
by  the  voice  of  the  law,  or  of  him  that  judges 
according  to  it,  by  a  mere  pardon  of  sin, 
than  Adam,  our  first  surety,  was  justified  by 


JUSTIFICATION EDWARDS.  151 

the  law  at  the  first  point  of  his  existence, 
before  he  had  fulfilled  the  obedience  of  the 
law,  or  had  so  much  as  any  trial,  whether  he 
would  fulfil  it  or  no.  If  Adam  had  finished 
his  course  of  perfect  obedience,  he  would 
have  been  justified;  and  certainly  his  justifi- 
cation would  have  implied  something  more 
than  what  is  merely  negative ;  he  would  have 
been  approved  of,  as  having  fulfilled  the 
righteousness  of  the  law,  and  accordingly 
would  have  been  adjudged  to  the  reward  of 
it.  So  Christ,  our  second  surety,  was  not 
justified  till  he  had  done  the  work  the  Father 
had  appointed  him;  and  kept  the  Father's 
commandments  through  all  trials;  and  then 
in  his  resurrection  he  was  justified.  When 
he  had  been  put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  but 
quickened  by  the  Spirit,  1  Pet.  iii.  18,  then 
he  that  was  manifest  in  the  flesh  was  justified 
in  the  Spirit,  1  Tim.  iii.  16;  but  God,  when 
he  justified  him  in  raising  him  from  the  dead, 
did  not  only  release  him  from  his  humiliation 
for  sin,  and  acquit  him  from  any  further  suf- 
fering or  abasement  for  it,  but  admitted  him 
to  that  eternal  and  immortal  life,  and  to  the 
beginning  of  that  exaltation  that  was  the 
reward  of  what  he  had  done.  And  indeed 
the  justification  of  a  believer  is  no  other  than 
his  being  admitted  to  communion  in  the  jus- 
tification of  this  head  and  surety  of  all  be- 
lievers; for  as  Christ  suffered  the  punishment 
of  sin,  not  as  a  private  person,  but  as  our 
surety;  so  when,  after  this  suffering,  he  was 
raised  from  the  dead,  he  was  therein  justified, 


152  JUSTIFICATION — DR.  ALEXANDER. 

not  as  a  private  person,  but  as  the  surety  arftl 
representative  of  all  that  should  believe  in 
him,"  ....  "To  suppose  that  all  Christ  does 
is  only  to  make  atonement  for  us  by  suffer- 
ing, is  to  make  him  our  Saviour  but  in  part. 
It  is  to  rob  him  of  half  his  glory  as  a  Saviour, 
For  if  so,  all  that  he  does  is  to  deliver  us 
from  hell;  he  does  not  purchase  heaven  for 
us." — Discourse  on  Justification. 

Alexander. — "Some  have  attempted  to 
evade  the  doctrine  [of  the  imputation  of 
Christ's  righteousness]  by  alleging,  that  not 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  but  its  effects  are 
imputed  to  us.  They  who  talk  thus  do  not 
seem  to  understand  what  they  say.  It  must 
be  by  the  imputation  of  the  righteousness 
that  the  good  effects  are  derived  to  us;  but 
the  imputation  of  the  effects  themselves  can- 
not be.  To  talk  of  imputing  pardon — of 
imputing  justification — imputing  peace,  &c. 
is  to  use  words  without  meaning.  What  we 
are  inquiring  after  is  the  reason  why  these 
blessings  become  ours.  It  cannot  be  on 
account  of  our  own  righteousness,  which  is 
of  the  law;  it  must  be  on  account  of  the 
righteousness  of  Christ.  The  next  question 
is,  how  does  that  righteousness  avail  to  ob- 
tain for  us  pardon  and  justification  and  peace 
with  God?  The  answer  is,  by  imputation ; 
that  is,  it  is  set  down  to  our  credit.  God 
accepts  it  on  our  behalf;  yea,  he  bestows  it 
upon  us.  If  there  be  any  such  thing  as 
imputation,  it  must  be  of  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  itself,  and  the  benefits  connected 


VIEWS    OF    DR.    ALEXANDER.  153 

with  salvation  flow  from  this  imputation. 
We  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  can  only  justify  us,  by  being 
imputed  to  us." 

In  reply  to  the  objection  that  this  doctrine 
"makes  the  sinner's  justification  a  matter  of 
justice,  and  not  of  grace,"  he  says,  "All  theo- 
ries which  suppose  that  grace  is  exercised  at 
the  expense  of  justice,  or  that  in  order  to  the 
manifestation  of  grace,  law  and  justice  must 
be  suspended,  labour  under  a  radical  mistake 
in  theology,  which  cannot  but  introduce  dark- 
ness and  perplexity  into  their  whole  system. 
Indeed,  if  law  and  justice  could  have  been 
set  aside  or  suspended,  there  had  been  no 
occasion  for  the  plan  of  redemption.  The 
only  reason  why  sinners  could  not  be  saved 
was,  that  the  law  and  justice  of  God  stood  in 
the  way;  but  if,  by  a  sovereign  act,  these 
obstacles  could  have  been  removed,  salvation 
might  have  been  accomplished  without  an 
atonement.  But  though  the  Scriptures,  every 
where,  ascribe  salvation  to  grace,  free 
grace;  yet  they  never  teach  that  this  grace 
requires  God  to  deny  himself,  as  to  his  attri- 
bute of  justice;  or  that  law  and  justice  are 
at  all  interfered  with ;  or  for  a  moment  sus- 
pended. On  the  contrary,  the  idea  is  contin- 
ually kept  in  view,  that  grace  reigns  through 
righteousness;  that  the  propitiation  of  Christ 
is  necessary,  that  God  may  be  just  and  yet 
the  justifier  of  the  ungodly.  Redemption  is 
the  obtaining  deUverance  by  paying  a  price; 
and  yet  redemption  and  grace,  so  far  from 
being  inconsistent,  are  constantly  united,  as 


154  JUSTIFICATION — DR.  ALEXANDER. 

parts  of  the  same  glorious  plan,  according  to 
the  Scriptures.  'In  whom  we  have  redemp- 
tion through  his  blood,  the  forgiveness-  of 
sins,  according  to  the  riches  of  his  grace.' 
(Eph.  i.  7.)  The  only  way  in  which  it  was 
possible  for  grace  to  be  exercised,  was  by  a 
plan  which  made  provision  for  the  complete 
satisfaction  of  law  and  justice.  This  was  the 
great  problem,  to  the  solution  of  which  no 
finite  wisdom  was  competent;  but  which  the 
infinite  wisdom  of  Jehovah  has  accomplished 
by  the  mission  and  sacrifice  of  his  own  dear 
Son.  What  is  objected,  therefore,  is  a  thing 
essential  to  the  exercise  of  grace.  And  the 
whole  appearance  of  plausibility  in  the  objec- 
tion arises  from  not  distinguishing  between 
God's  deahngs  with  our  substitute  and  with 
us.  To  him  there  was  no  mercy  shown;  the 
whole  process  was  in  strict  execution  of  law 
and  justice.  The  last  farthing  due,  so  to 
speak,  was  exacted  of  our  Surety,  when  he 
stood  in  our  place,  under  the  holy  and  sin 
avenging  law  of  God.  But  this  exercise  of 
justice  towards  him  was  the  very  thing  which 
opened  the  way  for  superabounding  mercy 
towards  us.  And  this  cost  at  which  the 
sluices  of  grace  were  opened,  so  far  from 
lessening,  constitutes  its  riches  and  glory."* 

*  This  extract  from  Dr.  Alexander,  and  those  which 
have  been  before  given  from  his  pen,  are  contained  in  a 
short  and  able  Treatise  on  Justification  by  Faith,  written 
by  him  for  the  Presbyterian  Tract  Society,  now  the 
Board  of  Publication  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  This 
tract  and  the  other  tracts  published  by  that  Board,  we 
recommend  to  the  perusal  of  our  readers. 


REMARKS  OF  DR.  DODDRIDGE.  155 

We  will  close  our  extracts  by  a  few  sen- 
tences bearing  upon  the  New  School  doc- 
trine, that  the  act  of  believing  is  imputed  for 
righteousness.  They  shall  be  from  the  pen 
of  Dr.  Doddridge,  in  his  note  on  the  phrase, 
"  Imputed  to  hini  [Abraham]  for  righteous- 
ness;" which  is  the  principal  text  relied  upon 
to  prove  the  new  doctrine.  Says  he,  "  I 
think  nothing  can  be  easier  than  to  under- 
stand how  this  may  be  said  in  full  consistence 
with  our  being  justified  by  the  imputation  of 
the  righteousness  of  Christ,  that  is,  our  being 
treated  by  God  as  righteous,  for  the  sake  of 
what  he  has  done  and  suffered:  for  though 
this  be  the  meritorious  cause  of  our  accept- 
ance with  God,  yet  faith  may  be  said  to  be 
imputed  to  us  in  order  to  our  being  justified 
or  becoming  righteous:  that  is,  according  to 
the  view  which  I  have  elsewhere  more  large- 
ly stated,  as  we  are  charged  as  debtors  in  the 
book  of  God's  account,  what  Christ  has  done 
in  fulfilling  all  righteousness  for  us  is  charged 
as  the  grand  balance  of  the  account;  but  that 
it  may  appear  that  we  are  according  to  the 
tenor  of  the  gospel  entitled  to  the  benefit  of 
this,  it  is  also  entered  in  the  book  of  God's 
remembrance  "  that  we  are  believers:"  and 
this  appearing,  we  are  graciously  discharged, 
yea,  rewarded,  as  if  we  ourselves  had  been 
perfectly  innocent  and  obedient." 

In  concluding  the  present  chapter  we  wish 
again  to  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the 
intimate  connexion  which  exists  between  the 
doctrine  of  justification  and  most  of  the  other 


156  REMARKS  OF  BELLAMY. 

doctrines  which  have  been  brought  to  view 
ill  the  preceding  pages.  Though  this  has 
been  already  alluded  to,  when  speaking  of 
imputation  and  original  sin,  the  truth  of  the 
remark  was  not,  perhaps,  so  obvious  as  it 
must  be  now.  The  federal  headship  of  Adam, 
the  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  his  first  sin  to 
his  posterity,  original  sin,  the  atonement  and 
justification,  are  so  closely  connected,  that  if 
we  have  incorrect  views  with  regard  to  the 
one,  we  shall  err  respecting  the  others.  The 
views  concerning  these  doctrines  which  we 
regard  as  scriptural,  and  which  we  have  en- 
deavoured to  substantiate,  so  far  as  the  de- 
sign of  the  work  would  permit,  are  all  difler- 
ent  parts  of  the  same  system.  If  one  of  them 
be  materially  modified  or  denied,  it  involves 
a  similar  modification  or  denial  of  the  whole. 
"  While  men  are  disputing,''  says  Dr.  Bella- 
my, "  against  the  original  constitution  with 
Adam,*  they  unawares  undermine  the  se- 
cond constitution,  which  is  the  foundation  of 
all  our  hopes.  Eager  to  avoid  Adam's  first 
sin,  whereby  comes  condemnation,  they  ren- 
der of  none  effect  Christ's  righteousness, 
whereby  comes  justification."  ....  "What 
remains,  therefore,  but  Deism  and  Infideli- 
ty?" 

Truth  is  harmonious.     The  several  doc- 
trines of  the  Bible,  like  the  stones  in  Solo- 

*  Dr.  Bellamy's  views  concerning  God's  covenant  with 

Adam,  original  sin,  &.C.,  are  the  same  with  those  of  Fresi. 

dent  Edwards;  from  whom  extracts  on  this  subject  have 

'  been  given. — See  True  Religion  Delineated,  pp.  269,  271. 


HUMAN  ABILITY.  157 

mon's  temple,  unite  together,  without  the  use 
of  an  "ax  or  hammer"  to  pare  down  their 
edges.  But  if  one  be  rejected,  there  is  noi 
only  a  vacancy  left  in  the  building,  which  no 
art  or  ingenuity  can  supply,  but  the  edifice 
itself  is  in  danger  of  falling. 


CHAPTER  Vir. 

HUMAN    ABILITY,    REGEXERATION,     AND     THE    INFLUENCES     OF 
THE   HOLY   SPIRIT. 

That  the  fall  of  man  has  not  released  us 
from  obligation  to  love  and  obey  God,  is 
maintained  by  all.  This,  however,  it  is  be- 
lieved, is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  doc- 
trine, that  from  our  "  original  corruption,  we 
are  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made 
opposite  to  all  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to 
all  evil."  As  our  inability  is  not  only  our 
misfortune,  but  our  sin,  it  can  never  destroy 
moral  obligation.  Upon  these  points  Calvin- 
istic  writers  are  generally  agreed.  But  as  the 
subject  is  attended  with  difficulties,  which, 
some  have  been  anxious  to  avoid,  a  distinc- 
tion has  been  resorted  to  between  natural 
and  moral  inability;  the  latter  of  which,  it  is 
supposed,  is  the  inability  under  which  the 
sinner  lies;  and  that  he  still  possesses  na- 
iural  ability  to  do  his  duty.  By  this  it  is 
meant  that  he  merely  has  the  physical  pow- 
er's, or  the  faculties  of  rnind,  which  are  re- 


158  HUMAISr  ABILITY. 

quisite  to  enable  him  to  do  what  God  re- 
quires— but  that  his  mind  is,  nevertheless, 
wholly  disiiiclined  io  that  which  is  good;  or 
in  other  words,  that  he  is  morally  unable  to 
exercise  holy  affections.  This  distinction,  it 
might  be  easily  shown,  is  not  without  foun- 
dation; and  yet  when  applied  to  the  subject 
of  religion,  it  is  doubted  by  many,  whether 
its  use  really  solves  any  difficulties,  or  is  pro- 
ductive of  any  practical  good ;  chiefly  from 
the  ambiguity  of  the  terms,  and  their  liability 
to  be  misunderstood. 

It  is  no  part  of  our  present  purpose  to  dis- 
cuss this  question.  We  have  introduced  it 
in  order  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  observa- 
tion, that  those  whose  sentiments  we  are  now 
considering,  retain  the  term  natural  in  con- 
nexion with  abihty;  and  thus  appear  to  ac- 
cord with  those  who  are  in  the  habit  of  mak- 
ing the  distinction  to  which  we  have  referred; 
though  in  reality  they  occupy  very  different 
ground.  Though  when  they  speak  of  ability, 
they  frequently  annex  to  it  the  word  na- 
tural, they  seldom  speak  of  mability  at  all 
— but  produce  the  impression  that  the  ability 
which  they  preach  is  fully  adequate  to  enable 
the  sinner,  independently  of  Divine  grace,  to 
do  all  that  God  requires. 

This  was  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Porter  con- 
cerning Dr.  Beecher's  preaching,  prior  to 
1829.  In  a  letter  addressed  to  him  which 
has  been  published  in  various  papers,  he 
says,  "  You  exalt  one  part  of  Calvinism,  viz: 
human  agency,  so  as  virtually  to  lose  sight 


VIEWS  OF  DK.  BEECHER.  159 

of  its  correlate  human  dependence^  and  thus 
make  regeneration  so  much  a  result  of  means 
and  instrumentality,  that  the  sinner  is  born 
rather  '  of  blood  or  of  the  will  of  man  than  of 
God.'  " 

A  similar  opinion  has  been  formed  by  some 
concerning  his  "  Views  in  Theology,"  pub- 
lished in  1S36.  Dr.  Harvey  says  concerning 
them,  "  Dr.  Beecher's  Views,  it  is  true,  have 
many  shades  and  shadows  of  orthodoxy. 
The  superstructure  looks  fair  and  imposing ; 
but  the  philosophy  is  Pelagian,  and  all  the 
orthodoxy  in  his  '  Views^  is  undermined  by  a 
false  theory  of  moral  agency,  on  which  the 
whole  is  founded." — Harvey  on  Moral  Agen- 
cy, p.  6.  The  following  quotations  will  show 
what  foundation  Dr.  Harvey  had  for  this 
opinion. 

Br.  Beecher  says,  (p.  30,  31,)  "That  man 
possesses  since  the  fall  the  powers  of  agency 
requisite  to  obhgation,  on  the  ground  of  the 
possibility  of  obedience,  is  a  matter  of  noto- 
riety. Not  one  of  the  powers  of  mind  which 
constituted  abiHty  before  the  fall  has  been 
obliterated  by  that  event.  All  that  has  ever 
been  conceived,  or  that  can  now  be  conceived, 
as  entering  into  the  constitution  of  a  free 
agent,  capable  of  choosing  life  or  death,  or 
which  did  exist  in  Adam  when  he  could  and 
did  obey,  yet  mutable,  survived  the  fall."  He 
says,  (p.  31,  32,)  "  Choice,  in  its  very  nature, 
implies  the  possibility  of  a  different  or  con- 
trary election  to  that  which  is  made.  There 
is  always  an  alternative  to  that  which  the 


160  HUMAN    ABILITY. 

mind  decides  on,  with  the  conscious  ^02^;er  of 
choosing  either.''^  .  .  .  .  "  The  question  of  free 
will  is  not  whether  man  chooses — this  is  no- 
torious, none  deny  it;  but  whether  his  choice 
is  free  as  opposed  to  a  fatal  necessity."  Again, 
(p.  35,)  ^'  Choice,  without  the  possibility  of 
other  or  contrary  choice,  is  the  immemorial 
doctrine  of  fatalism:"  and  further,  (p.  47,) 
"  This  doctrine  of  the  natural  ability  of 
choice^  coniniensurate  loith  obligation,  has 
been,  and  is,  the  received  doctrine  of  the  uni- 
versal orthodox  church,  from  the  primitive 
age  down  to  this  day." 

The  first  of  these  propositions  speaks  with- 
out any  qualification  of  the  ^^possibility  of 
obedience,^^  in  reference  to  fallen  man — and 
makes  this  essential  to  obligation.  The 
second  and  third  predicate  this  possibility 
of  obedience  upon  the  possession  of  a  self- 
determining  power  of  the  will,  by  which  we 
can  not  only  choose,  but  alter  our  volitions 
at  pleasure.  This,  according  to  his  view,  is 
essential  to  free  agency.  The  third  afiirms 
that  "  this  natural  ability  of  choice,^'  by 
which  we  understand  him  to  mean,  the  power 
which  we  naturally  possess  as  free  agents, 
over  our  volitions,  "  is  commensurate  with 
obligation.''  If  these  are  the  ideas  which 
he  intends  to  convey,  it  follows,  that  man 
since  the  fall  possesses  all  the  powers  which 
are  requisite  to  enable  him  to  change  his  sin- 
ful volitions  for  those  which  are  holy:  or,  to 
use  the  language  of  Dr.  Harvey,  ''  that  man 
possesses,  since  the  fall,  the  powers  of  agency 


REMARKS  OF  DR.  HARVEY.  161 

requisite  to  obligation,  on  the  ground  of  pos- 
sessing a  power  of  contrary  choice,  by  which 
he  can  recover  himself  from  perfect  sinfulness 
to  perfect  holiness." — Harvey  on  Moral  Agen- 
cy, pp.  80,  81.  "Natural  ability  of  choice, 
commensurate  with  obligation,  says  Dr.  Har- 
vey, must  mean  something  more  than  the 
mere  power  of  choice;  it  means  natural  abili- 
ty not  only  to  do  right,  if  one  is  disposed, 
but  natural  ability  to  overcome  every  moral 
impediment.  In  other  words,  it  means  natu- 
ral ability  to  overcome  moral  inability,  or 
natural  ability  which  can  produce  ability 
enough  to  overcome  moral  inability.  Thus, 
as  I  have  before  had  occasion  to  remark,  the 
great  object  is  to  render  man,  in  his  fallen 
state,  independent  of  the  grace  of  God.  To 
accomplish  this  purpose.  Dr.  Beecher  intro- 
duces the  extra  power  of  contrary  choice  as 
an  addition  to  the  simple  power  of  choice, 
and  which  he  deems  sufficient  to  equal  obli- 
gation, and  if  so,  to  bring  the  sinner  out  of 
darkness  into  light,  to  raise  him  from  death 
to  life.  Thus  Dr.  Beecher,  in  effect,  coincides 
with  Pelagius,  who  denied  all  moral  inability. 
Pelagius  takes  the  city  by  undermining  and 
sinking  the  wall ;  Dr.  Beecher  by  building  an 
embankment  which  shall  overtop  the  wall. 
One  sinks  the  wall  to  the  surface,  the  other 
raises  the  surface  to  the  wall's  top;  and  in 
both  cases,  the  obstacle  of  moral  inability  is 
annihilated." — Harvey  on  Moral  Agency, 
pp.  115,  116. 

We  have  exhibited  Dr.  Beecher's  views  in 
14 


162  HUMAN  ABILITY. 

the  above  form,  because  the  language  of  his 
several  propositions  is  such,  that  the  senti- 
ments intended  to  be  conveyed  are  not  per- 
fectly obvious  upon  a  simple  perusal.  The 
deductions  which  we  have  made,  or  which 
we  have  quoted  from  Dr.  Harvey,  we  do  not 
of  course,  ascribe  to  Dr.  Beecher,  as  express- 
ing what  he  believes — but  if  we  have  not 
mistaken  his  views,  they  appear  to  lead,  by 
legitimate  consequence,  to  these  conclusions 
— and  to  some  of  them  it  is  probable  he  would 
not  refuse  his  assent;  since  it  would  be  going 
no  further  than  has  been  expressed  by  two 
or  three  who  belong  to  the  same  school. 

Says  Mr.  Duffield, — "  Not  much  less  de- 
luding are  the  system  and  tactics  of  those 
who  fearing  to  invade  the  province  of  the 
Spirit,  are  careful  to  remind  the  sinner,  that 
he  is  utterly  unable  by  his  own  unassisted 
powers  either  to  believe  or  to  repent  to  the 
saving  of  his  soul.  It  might  as  truly  be  said, 
that  he  cannot  rise  and  walk,  by  his  own  un- 
assisted powers.^' — Work  on  Regeneration, 
p.  542. 

Mr.  Finney's  language  is  that  "  as  God  re- 
quires men  to  make  themselves  a  new  heart, 
on  pain  of  eternal  death,  it  is  the  strongest 
possible  evidence  that  they  are  able  to  do  it 
— to  say  he  has  commanded  them  to  do  it, 
without  telling  them  they  are  able,  is  con- 
summate trifling." '^  If  the  sinner  ever 

has  a  new  heart,  he  must  obey  the  command 
of  the  text,  and  make  it  himself"  ...... 

"  Sinner!  instead  of  waiting  and  praying  for 


VIEWS  OF  MR.  BARNES.  163 

God  to  change  your  heart,  you  should  at  once 
summon  up  your  powers,  put  forth  the  effort, 
and  change  the  governing  preferences  of  your 
mind.  But  here,  some  one  may  ask,  Can  the 
carnal  mind,  which  is  enmity  against  God, 
change  itself?  I  have  already  said  that  this 
text  in  the  original  reads,  '  The  minding  of 
the  flesh  is  enmity  against  God.'  This  mind- 
ing of  the  flesh  then  is  a  choice  or  preference 
to  gratify  the  flesh.  Now  it  is  indeed  absurd 
to  say,  that  a  choice  can  change  itself;  but 
it  is  not  absurd  to  say,  that  the  agent  who 
exercises  this  choice  can  change  it.  The  sin- 
ner that  minds  the  flesh,  can  change  his  mind, 
and  mind  God." — Sermons  on  important  Sub- 
jects, pp.  18,  37,  38. 

This  exposition  of  the  "carnal  mind"  is  a 
favourite  one  w4th  writers  of  this  class.  Says 
Mr.  Barnes,  "  The  amount  of  his  [Paul's] 
aflirmation  is  simply,  that  the  minding  of  the 
flesh,  the  supreme  attention  to  its  dictates 
and  desires,  is  not  and  cannot  be  subject  to 
the  law  of  God.  They  are  wholly  contra- 
dictory and  irreconcilable."  .  .  .  .  "  But 
whether  the  man  himself  might  not  obey 
the  law,  whether  he  has,  or  has  not,  ability 
to  do  it,  is  a  question  which  the  Apostle  does 
not  touch,  and  on  which  this  passage  should 
not  be  adduced." — Notes  on  the  Romans,  p. 
164.  In  commenting  on  the  phrase  "neither 
indeed  can  be,"  he  repeats  the  same  senti- 
ment concerning  ability  which  is  expressed 
above.  Also  in  his  exposition  of  the  passage, 
"  when  we  were  without  strength  Christ  died 


164  HUMAN  ABILITY. 

for  the  ungodly:"  "The  remark  of  the 
Apostle  here,"  says  he,  "  has  reference  only 
to  the  condition  of  the  race  before  an  atone- 
ment is  made.  It  does  not  pertain  to  the 
question  whether  man  has  strength  to  repent 
and  to  believe,  after  an  atonement  is  made, 
which  is  a  very  different  inquiry."  Though 
Mr.  Barnes  expresses  himself  with  much  more 
caution  than  Messrs.  Finney  and  DufField, 
it  is  apparent  that  he  favours  their  sentiments. 
Tliere  is  so  striking  a  similarity  between 
the  views  of  these  men  and  those  of  Dr.  John 
Taylor  of  Norwich,  that  it  will  be  appropri- 
ate to  refer  to  the  latter;  with  the  remarks  of 
President  Edv/ards  upon  them,  showing  what 
he  thought  of  their  tendency.  They  are  con- 
tained in  his  work  on  Original  Sin.  "  It  will 
follow,"  sa^'s  he,  "  on  our  author's  principles 
[Dr.  Taylor's  principles]  not  only  whh  re- 
spect to  infants,  but  even  adult  persons,  that 
redemption  is  needless,  and  Christ  is  dead  in 
vain.  Not  only  is  there  no  need  of  Christ's 
redemption  in  order  to  deliverance  from  any 
consequences  of  Adani's  sin,  but  also  in  or- 
der to  perfect  freedom  from  personal  sin,  and 
all  its  evil  consequences.  For  God  has  made 
other  sufficient  provision  for  that,  viz.  a  suf- 
ficient power  and  ability,  in  all  mankind, 
to  do  all  their  duty  and  wholly  to  avoid  sin. 
Yea  he  insists  upon  it,  that '  when  men  have 
not  sufficient  power  to  do  their  duty,  they 
have  no  duty  to  do.  We  may  safely  and 
assuredly  conclude,  (says  he,)  that  mankind 
in  all  parts  of  the  world  have  sufficient 


REMARKS  OF  EDWARDS.  165 

power  to  do  the  duty  which  God  requires  of 
them;  and  that  he  requires  of  them  no  more 
than  they  have  sufficient  powers  to  do.' 
And  in  another  place,  ^  God  has  given  powers 
EQUAL  to  the  duty  which  he  expects.'  And 
he  expresses  a  great  disUke  at  R.  R.'s  sup- 
posing Uhat  our  propensities  to  evil,  and 
temptations  are  too  strong  to  be  effectu- 
ally and  CONSTANTLY  resisted;  or  that  we 
are  unavoidably  sinful  in  a  degree;  that 
our  appetites  and  passions  will  be  breaking 
out,  notwithstanding  our  everlasting  watch- 
fulness.' These  things  fully  imply  that  men 
have  in  their  own  natural  ability  sufficient 
means  to  avoid  sin,  and  to  be  perfectly  free 
from  it ;  and  so  from  all  the  bad  consequences 
of  it.  And  if  the  means  are  sufficient,  then 
there  is  no  need  of  more  ;  and  therefore  there 
is  no  need  of  Christ's  dying  in  order  to  it. 
What  Dr.  Taylor  says  fully  implies  that  it 
would  be  unjust  in  God  to  give  mankind 
being  in  such  circumstances,  as  that  they 
would  be  more  likely  to  sin,  so  as  to  be  ex- 
posed to  final  misery,  than  otherwise.  Hence 
then,  without  Christ  and  his  redemption,  and 
without  any  grace  at  all,  mere  justice  makes 
sufficient  provision  for  our  being  free  from 
sin  and  misery  by  our  own  power." 

"If  all  mankind,  in  all  parts  of  the  world, 
have  sufficient  power  to  do  their  whole  duty, 
without  being  sinful  in  any  degree,  then  they 
have  sufficient  power  to  obtain  righteousness 
by  the  law :  and  then,  according  to  the  apos- 
tle  Paul,  Christ  is  dead  in  vain.     Gal.  ii. 


166  HUMAN  ABILITY. 

21.  ^If  righteousness  come  by  law,  Christ 
is  dead  in  vain ;" — hy  law,  or  the  rule  of 
right  action,  as  our  author  explains  the 
phrase.  And  according  to  the  sense  in  which 
he  explains  this  very  place,  *  it  would  have 
frustrated,  or  rendered  useless,  the  grace  of 
God,  if  Christ  died  to  accomplish  what  was 
or  MIGHT  have  been  effected  by  law  itself 
without  his  death.  *  So  that  it  most  clearly  fol- 
lows from  his  own  doctrine,  that  Christ  is 
dead  in  vain,  and  the  grace  of  God  is  useless. 
The  same  apostle  says,  if  there  had  been  a 
laio  luhich  could  have  given  life,  verily 
righteousness  should  have  been  by  the  laiv. 
Gal.  iii.  21.;  i.  e.  (according  to  Dr.  Taylor's 
own  sense,)  if  there  was  a  law,  that  man,  in 
his  present  state  had  sufficient  power  to  fulfil. 
For  Dr.  Taylor  supposes  the  reason  why  the 
law  could  not  give  life,  to  be  '  not  because  it 
was  weak  in  itself,  but  through  the  weak- 
ness of  our  flesh,  and  the  infirmity  of  human 
nature  in  the  present  state.'  Bat  he  says, 
^  We  are  under  a  mild  dispensation  of  grace 
making  allowance  for  our  infirmities.'  By 
our  infirmities,  we  may,  on  good  ground, 
suppose  he  means  that  infirmity  of  human 
nature,  Avhich  he  gives  as  the  reason  why 
the  law  cannot  give  life.  But  what  grace  is 
there  for  making  that  allowance  for  our  in- 
firmities, which  justice  itself  (according  to 
his  doctrine,)  most  absolutely  requires,  as  he 
supposes  Divine  justice  exactly  proportions 
our  duty  to  our  ability  ? 

''  Again,  if  it  be  said,  that  although  Christ's 


REMARKS  OF  EDWARDS.  167 

redemption  was  not  necessary  to  preserve 
men  from  beginning  to  sin,  and  getting  into 
a  course  of  sin,  because  they  have  sufficient 
power  in  themselves  to  avoid  it;  yet  it  may 
be  necessary  to  deUver  men,  after  they  have 
by  their  own  folly  brought  themselves  un- 
der the  dominion  of  evil  appetites  and  pas- 
sions; I  answer,  if  it  be  so,  that  men  need 
deliverance  from  those  habits  and  passions, 
which  are  become  too  strong  for  them,  yet 
that  deliverance,  on  our  author's  principles, 
would  be  no  salvation  from  sin.  For  the 
exercise  of  passions  which  are  too  strong  for 
us,  and  which  we  cannot  overcome,  is  neces- 
sary: and  he  strongly  urges,  that  a  necessary 
evil  can  be  no  moral  evil.  It  is  true  it  is  the 
effect  of  evil,  as  it  is  the  effect  of  a  bad  prac- 
tice, while  the  man  had  power  to  have  avoid- 
ed it.  But  then,  according  to  Dr.  Taylor  that 
evil  cause  alone  is  sin;  for  he  says  expressly, 
*  The  cause  of  every  effect  is  alone  charge- 
able with  the  effect  it  produceth,  or  which 
proceedeth  from  it.'  And  as  to  that  sin 
which  was  the  cause,  the  man  needed  no 
Saviour  from  that,  having  had  sufficient 
poiver  in  himself  to  have  avoided  it.  So 
that  it  follows  by  our  author's  scheme,  that 
none  of  mankind,  neither  infants  nor  adult 
persons,  neither  the  more  or  less  vicious, 
neither  Jews  nor  Gentiles,  neither  Heathens 
nor  Christians,  ever  did  or  even  could  stand 
in  any  need  of  a  Saviour ;  and  that  with  re- 
spect to  all,  the  truth  is,  Christ  is  dead  in 
vain. 


168  HUMAN  ABILITY. 

"  If  any  should  say,  although  all  mankind 
in  all  ages  have  sufficient  ability  to  do  their 
whole  duty,  and  so  may  by  their  own  power 
enjoy  perfect  freedom  from  sin,  3^et  God  fore- 
saiv  that  they  would  sin,  and  that  offer  they 
had  sinned  they  would  need  Christ's  death  ; 
I  answer,  it  is  plain,  by  what  the  apostle 
says  in  those  places  which  were  just  now 
mentioned,  (Gal.  ii.  21,  and  iii.  21,)  that  God 
would  have  esteemed  it  needless  to  give  his 
Son  to  die  for  men,  unless  there  had  been  a 
prior  impossibility  of  their  having  righteous- 
ness by  any  law;  and  that  if  there  had  been 
a  law  ivhich  could  have  given  life,  this  other 
way  by  the  death  of  Christ  would  not  have 
been  provided.  And  this  appears  so  agree- 
able to  our  author's  own  sense  of  things,  by 
his  words  which  have  been  cited,  wherein  he 
says,  *  It  would  have  frustrated  or  render- 
ed USELESS  the  grace  of  God,  if  Christ  died 
to  accomplish  what  was  or  might  have  been 
effected  by  law  itself,  without  his  death.' " 

The  new  views  concerning  human  ability 
have  an  exact  counterpart  in  the  description 
which  is  given  by  different  writers  of  this 
school,  of  the  work  of  regeneration,  and  the 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  According  to  them, 
regeneration  consists  iti  the  mere  change  of  the 
governing  purpose  or  preference  of  the  soul 
— by  which  the  sinner  renounces  the  world 
as  the  supreme  object  of  pursuit,  and  makes 
choice  of  God  and  heavenly  things.  Prompt- 
ed by  self-love,  or  in  other  words,  by  a  con- 
stitutional desire  for  happiness,  which  is  nei- 


REGENERATIO?{ — DR.  TAYLOR.  169 

ther  sinful  nor  holy,  and  the  selfish  prmciple 
in  his  heart  being  suspended,  he  enters  upon 
a  serious  consideration  and  comparison  of  the 
various  objects  of  happiness:  until  he  dis- 
covers the  infinite  superiority  of  God  and  di- 
vine things  to  every  other  object.  Then,  by 
"  desperate  efforts,"  he  fixes  his  heart  upon 
them;  and  thus  becomes  a  Christian.  The 
part  which  the  Holy  Spirit  performs  in  the 
work  is,  to  present  truth  powerfully  before  the 
mind  in  the  form  of  motives,  like  an  advo- 
cate arguing  a  cause  before  a  jury;  or  as  one 
man  influences  and  persuades  another  in  the 
common  affairs  of  life ;  though  with  infinitely 
greater  skill  and  force  than  can  be  employed 
by  any  human  agent.  His  attention  is  thus 
arrested — he  revolves  in  his  mind  the  points 
at  issue-;r-and  at  length  being  convinced  where 
his  true  interest  lies,  he  is  prevailed  upon  by 
the  moral  suasion  of  the  Spirit,  to  change  the 
governing  purpose  or  preference  of  his  mind, 
and  to  choose  God  as  his  supreme  portion. 

The  language  of  Dr.  Taylor  is  as  follows: 
"  We  proceed  to  say  then,  that  before  the  act 
of  the  will  or  heart  in  which  the  sinner  first 
prefers  God  to  any  other  object,  the  object  of 
the  preference  must  be  viewed  or  estimated 
as  the  greatest  good.  Before  the  object  can 
be  viewed  as  the  greatest  good,  it  must  be 
compared  with  other  objects,  as  both  are 
sources  or  means  of  good.  Before  this  act 
of  comparing,  there  must  be  an  act  dictated 
not  by  selfishness  but  self-love,  in  which  the 
mind  determines  to  direct  its  thoughts  to  the 
15 


170  REGENERATION. 

objects  for  the  sake  of  considering  their  rela- 
tive value,  of  forming  a  judgment  respecting 
it;  and  of  choosing  one  or  the  other  as  the 
chief  good." — Christian  Spectator,  1829,  pp. 
19,20. 

"  Divine  truth  does  not  become  a  means  to 
this  end,  until  the  selfish  principle  so  long 
cherished  in  the  heart  is  suspended;  and  the 
mind  is  left  to  the  control  of  that  constitutional 
desire  of  happiness  which  is  an  original  prm- 
ciple  of  our  nature.  Then  it  is,  we  apprehend, 
that  God  and  the  world  are  contemplated  by 
the  mind  as  objects  of  choice,  substantially  as 
they  would  be  by  a  being  who  had  just  en- 
tered on  existence,  and  who  was  called  upon 
for  the  first  time  to  select  the  one  or  the  other 
as  his  supreme  good." — Christian  Spectator, 
1829,  p.  210. 

"Now  we  readily  concede  that  sinners 
never  use  the  means  of  regeneration  with  a 
holy  heart,  nor  with  an  unholy  or  sinful  heart. 
But  does  it  therefore  follow  that  they  never 
use  them  with  any  heart  at  all?  What  is 
that  heart  with  which  God  in  his  law  re- 
quires sinners  to  love  him?  Surely  not  a 
heart  which  is  holy  before  they  love  him. 
Still  less  with  a  sinful  heart;  and  yet  he 
requires  them  to  love  him  with  some  heart, 
even  their  heart.  Is  this  no  heart  at  all? 
We  think  on  the  contrary  it  is  a  real  heart,  a 
heart  with  which  sinners  can  love  God,  even 
without  the  grace  of  the  Spirit,  and  certainly 
with  it." — Christian  Spectator,  1830,  pp.  149, 
150. 


VIEWS  OF  FINNEY  AND  DUFFIELD.  171 

Concerning  the  nature  of  the  Spirit's  agency, 
"we  beUeve  Dr.  Taylor  has  not  pubUshed  his 
views.  But  the  author  of  "  Letters  on  the 
New-Haven  Theology"  informs  us  that  his 
sentiments  correspond  with  those  of  Mr. 
Finney. 

Mr.  Finney  says,  "The  Spirit  pours  the 
expostulation  home  with  such  power,  that 
the  sinner  turns.  Now,  in  speaking  of  this 
change,  it  is  perfectly  proper  to  say,  that  the 
Spirit  turned  him,  just  as  you  would  say 
of  a  man  who  had  persuaded  another  to 
change  his  mind  on  the  subject  of  politics, 
that  he  had  converted  him  and  brought  him 

over.'' "He  does  not  act  by  direct 

physical  contact  upon  the  mind,  but  he  uses 
the  truth  as  his  sword  to  pierce  the  sinner; 
and  the  motives  presented  in  the  gospel  are 
the  instruments  he  uses  to  change  the  sinner's 
heart.  Some  have  doubted  this,  and  sup- 
posed that  it  is  equivalent  to  denying  the 
Spirit's  agency  altogether  to  maintain  that  he 
converts  sinners  by  motives.  Others  have 
denied  the  possibility  of  changing  the  heart 
by  motives.  But  did  not  the  serpent  change 
Adam's  heart  by  motives  ?  and  cannot  the 
Spirit  of  God  with  infinitely  higher  motives 
exert  as  great  power  over  mind  as  he 
can  ?"...."  From  these  remarks  it  is  easy 
to  answer  the  question  sometimes  put  by 
individuals  who  seem  to  be  entirely  in  the 
dark  on  this  subject,  whether  in  converting 
the  soul  the  Spirit  acts  directly  on  the  mind, 
or  on  the  truth.    This  is  the  same  nonsense 


172  REGENERATION. 

as  if  you  should  ask  whether  an  earthly  ad- 
vocate who  had  gained  his  cause,  did  it  by 
acting  directly  and  physically  on  the  jury  or 

on  his  argument." "  The  power  which 

God  exerts  in  the  conversion  of  a  soul  is  rnoral 
power;  it  is  that  kind  of  power  by  which  a 
statesman  sways  the  mind  of  a  senate;  or  by 
which  an  advocate  moves  and  bows  the  heart 
of  a  jury." — Sermons  on  Important  Subjects, 
pp.  21,27,28,30. 

As  to  what  regeneration  consists  in,  Mr. 
Finney  observes,  "  A  change  of  heart,  then, 
consists  in  changing  the  controlling  preference 
of  the  mind  in  regard  to  the  end  of  pursuit. 
The  selfish  heart  is  a  preference  of  self-inter- 
est to  the  glory  of  God  and  the  interests  of 
his  kingdom.  A  new  heart  consists  in  a  pre- 
ference of  the  glory  of  God  and  the  interests 
of  his  kingdom  to  one's  own  happiness."  .  .  . 
*'  It  is  a  change  in  the  choice  of  a  Supreme 
Ruler?^  Ibid.  pp.  9,  10.  In  describing  the 
process  by  which  the  sinner  effects  this 
change,  he  occupies  nearly  a  whole  sermon, 
which  we  cannot  of  course,  with  propriety, 
transfer  to  these  pages.  It  corresponds  sub- 
stantially with  the  views  already  given  from 
Dr.  Taylor. 

Mr.  Duffield's  account  of  Regeneration  is  as 
follows:  "It  is  going  altogether  beyond  the 
analogy  in  the  case,  to  assert  that  there  is  in 
Regeneration  the  injection^  infusion,  or  ini- 
j)lantation,ox  creation  Qi  "a.  new  principle  of 
spiritual  lifeP ....  "  Whenever  the  Spirit 
of  God  excites  and  secures  in  the  mind  and 


VIEWS  OF  DUFFIELD.  173 

heart  of  man  those  acts  and  emotions  which 
are  appropriate  to  his  rational  soul,  i.  e.  when 
they  are  directed  to  God,  as  his  supreme 
good  and  chief  end,  he  is  renewed,  regene- 
rated, born  again.^' — Work  on  Regeneration, 
pp.  202,  203,  204.  But  how  does  the  Spirit 
produce  this  result?  According  to  him  it  is 
done  by  moral  suasion.  He  has  two  whole 
chapters,  occupying  thirty-five  pages,  entitled 
"  The  Moral  Suasion  of  the  Spirit."  In  one 
of  these  he  illustrates  his  views  of  the  nature 
of  the  Spirit's  agency  by  the  power  of  per- 
suasion exerted  by  one  man  over  another, 
and  the  greater  success  which  a  man  of  "prac- 
tical knowledge  and  tact  and  particular  ac- 
quaintance with  dispositions,"  &c.  has  above 
one  who  is  less  skilful.  "  Shall  we  suppose, 
(says  he,)  that  God  cannot  do  with  sinners  in 
reference  to  himself  what  one  man  has  done 
with  another  ? — that  a  physical  efficiency  is 
necessary  to  make  the  sinner  willing  to  con- 
fide in  him  and  repent  of  his  rebellion  ?  To 
suppose  this,  is  in  fact  to  attribute  a  moral 
influence  to  man  more  potent  than  that 
which,  in  such  a  case,  it  would  be  requisite 
God  should  exert !  It  would  in  effect  be  to 
say  that  man  can  subdue  his  foe,  and  by  an 
appropriate  moral  influence  convert  him  into 
a  friend;  but  that  God  cannot  convert  his 
enemy,  and  bring  him  to  believe,  except  he 
puts  forth  his  physical  power  and  literally 
creates  him  over  again."  Pp.  492,  493.* 

*  This  power  of  moral  suasion  is  the  kind  of  influence  i 
referred  to  by  a  certain  preacher  who  said,  "  If  I  were  as ' 


174  REGENERATION. 

During  the  progress  of  the  discussion  con- 
cerning the  New  Theology,  it  was  alleged  by 
some  by  way  of  objection  to  the  new  theory, 
that  it  involved  the  principle  that  regenera- 
tion is  not  an  instantaneous  but  a  gradual 
work.  This  allegation  so  far  as  I  recollect, 
was  for  a  time  neither  admitted  nor  denied. 
But  recently  the  doctrine  of  gradual  regene- 
ration has  been  avowed.  Mr.  Gilbert,"*  of  Wil- 
mington, Delaware,  published  in  the  Philadel- 
phian  in  1833,  a  number  of  communications 
on  this  subject;  which  were  afterwards  re- 
vised and  enlarged,  and  in  1836,  at  the 
"  earnest  request'^  of  the  "  members  of  the 
Ministers'  Meeting  of  New  Castle  County, 
Delaware,"  were  published  in  a  pamphlet 
form,  under  the  title  of  "Moral  Suasion;  or 
Regeneration  not  a  Miracle,''  &c.  It  is  dedica- 
ted to  the  members  of  the  Ministers'  Meeting, 
and  to  the  elders  of  the  churches  under  their 
pastoral  charge.  These  facts  appear  to  show 
that  Mr.  Gilbert's  views  accord  with  the 
sentiments  of  the  other  ministers  with  whom 
he  is  associated  in  that  State,  and  that  they 

eloquent  as  the  Holy  Ghost  I  could  convert  sinners  as 
well  as  He."  In  the  National  Preacher  for  February 
1832,  a  sermon  furnished  by  Dr.  Griffin  commences  by 
quoting  the  above  remark.  It  being  attributed  by  some 
to  a  Presbyterian  minister  of  my  acquaintance,  I  asked 
him  whether  he  had  ever  used  this  expression.  He  re- 
plied  that  he  had,  and  vindicated  its  correctness ;  though 
he  said  it  did  not  appear  in  the  connexion  in  which  he 
used  it,  as  it  does  when  standing  by  itself. 

*  In  the  organization  of  the  New  School  General  As- 
sembly  in  May,  1838,  Mr.  Gilbert  was  chosen  permanent 
clerk. 


VIEWS  OF  MR.  GILBERT.  175 

desire  to  have  them  prevail  throughout  their 
churches. 

Mr.  Gilbert  affirms  that  "  the  Bible  knows 
no  instantaneous  regeneration;  this  is  a  re- 
finement of  theological  philosophers.  Being 
born  again,  and  changing  the  heart  of  stone 
to  a  heart  of  flesh,  is  a  gradual  process; 
although  under  some  circumstances  it  may- 
be a  very  short  oneP  The  remark  of  Dr. 
Griffin,  that  "  motives  can  never  change  an 
unholy  temper,^^  &c.  he  calls  "  strange  philo- 
sophy; flying  not  only  in  the  face  of  Scrip- 
ture, but  of  every  day  matters  of  fact." 
"  How  often,"  (says  he,)  "do  we  see  enmity 
to  a  neighbour,  corrected,  moderated,  sub- 
dued and  turned  to  love,  by  proper  motives 
presented  to  the  mind?  And  enmity  to  God 
is  restrained  and  subdued  in  the  same  man- 
ner." These  motives,  he  maintains,  are  pre- 
sented in  the  latter  case  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
who  convicts,  converts,  and  sanctifies,  "by 
the  influence  of  truth  presented  to  the  mind 
and  in  no  other  way."  In  one  place,  he 
says :  "  Regeneration  cannot  be  wrought 
without  the  truth.  It  is  in  view  of  the 
truth,  through  the  truth,  and  by  the  truth, 
the  soul  is  convicted,  converted,  and  sanctified 
from  beginning  to  end." 

To  illustrate  his  views  he  has  furnished  a 
diagram  consisting  of  an  arc  of  a  circle,  in 
the  centre  of  which  he  has  placed  the  Holy 
Spirit.  From  this  centre  are  drawn  straight 
lines  to  various  points  in  the  arc,  represent- 
ing truth  as  employed  by  the  Spirit.    A  sin- 


176  REGENEEATION. 

ner  pursuing  his  way  to  hell  is  represented 
as  being  met  by  one  of  these  lines,  through 
the  influence  of  which  he  is  persuaded  to 
diverge  a  little  from  the  path  he  was  pursuing, 
and  proceeding  at  an  angle  of  about  forty- 
five  degrees,  he  passes  gradually  through  the 
several  steps  of  conviction,  regeneration,  and 
sanctification,  describing  in  his  progress  the 
arc  of  the  circle;  until  arriving  at  a  point 
directly  opposite  from  where  he  started,  he 
becomes  perfect  and  ascends  to  heaven. 

That  the  reader  may  see  for  himself  this 
new  and  improved  method  of  regeneration 
by  attraction,  we  will  give  the  diagram  with 
the  author's  explanation.*  We  ought  to  re- 
mark, however,  that  he  uses  the  terms  con- 
viction and  sanctification  in  accommodation 
to  the  views  and  language  of  others.  Ac- 
cording to  his  own  views  the  whole  process 
from  beginning  to  end  belongs  to  the  work 
qf  regeneration.  "  By  regeneration,^^  says 
he,  "  is  understood  the  divine  agency  in  the 
whole  process  of  a  sinner's  conviction  and 
conversion  ;  but  in  this  discussion  I  use  it  as 
it  is  used  by  Dr.  Griffin,  Mr.  Smith  and  others, 
in  the  restricted  sense  as  distinguished  from 
previous  conviction  and  subsequent  sanctifi- 
cation." "  It  [the  Bible]  knows  of  no  regene- 
ration as  distinct  from  conviction  and  the 
beginning  of  santcification." 

*  As  a  matter  of  taste  we  would  exclude  this  diagram 
from  our  pages — but  other  considerations  which  we  regard 
as  paramount,  induce  us  to  insert  it. 


VIEWS  OF  MR.  GILBERT. 


177 


Heaven. 
G 


E 

HeU. 


THE    AUTHOR  S   EXPLANATION. 


"  Let  the  semicircle,  A.  B.  C.  represent  the 
sinner's  course  from  sin  to  holiness.  Let  D. 
E.  represent  the  road  to  hell,  in  which  the 
impenitent  sinner  is  found  by  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit, and  influenced  at  the  point  A.*by  a  new 
presentation  of  truth,  to  stop  and  turn  gra- 
dually from  his  downward  course/ through 
the  curve  of  conviction,  towards  the  point  B. 
when  his  conviction  becoming  perfect  and 
irresistible,  he  yields  and  turns  from  his 
downward  course,  through  the  process  of 
sanctification,  until  at  C.  (or  at  death,)  be- 
coming perfect,  he  flies  off,  if  you  please,  in 
a  tangent,  to  heaven.    Till  he  reaches  the 


178  REGENERATION NEW  THEOLOGY. 

point  B.  though  turning  gradually  from  the 
more  direct  road  to  hell,  he  is  still  in  the 
downward  course,  and  should  the  Spirit  let 
go  of  him,  at  any  point,  he  flies  off",  by  his 
own  centrifugal  force,  in  a  moment  towards 
perdition.  The  point  B.  represents  what 
these  writers  call '  Regeneration.^  ^^ 

"  The  Holy  Spirit,  like  the  sun  in  the  cen- 
tre, is  the  source  of  all  right  motion;  and  the 
power  by  which  he  attracts  or  influences  the 
sinner,  is  the  power  of  truth,  or  moral  mo- 
tive ;  by  which  the  moral  agent  is  checked  at 
A.,  and  moved  and  controlled  through  the 
whole  course  from  A.  to  C.  It  is  understood, 
of  course,  that  the  whole  process  may  be 
longer  or  shorter, according  to  circumstances; 
may  begin  and  be  perfected,  as  with  the  thief 
on  the  cross, in  a  single  day;  or  as  in  the  case 
of  Methuselah,  may  occupy  nine  hundred  or 
one  thousand  years.  Conviction,  also,  may 
be  short,  and  sanctification  long,  or  the  re- 
verse. But  conviction  must,  from  the  nature 
of  the  case,  precede  regeneration,  or  regene- 
ration cannot  be  a  rational  change.  A  phy- 
sical change  may  take  place  without  convic- 
tion ;  but  physical  regeneration  is  a  thing 
which  I  cannot  comprehend,  any  more  than 
physical  conviction  or  physical  sanctification. 
The  doctrine  of  the  moral  suasionists  is,  that 
the  influence  which  convicts,  also  regene- 
rates and  sanctifies.  That  the  same  power 
which  moves  the  sinner  from  A.  to  B.  moves 
him  through  the  point  B.  and  along  the  Une 


MR.  gilbert's  views.  179 

to  C.  And  that  the  whole  change  is  wrought 
through  appropriate  means,  without  a  mi- 
racle, by  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Agreeably  to  these  ideas  of  gradual  pro- 
gress from  the  first  point  to  the  last,  he  says: 
"  There  is  very  little  distinction  between  the 
last  degree  of  sin  and  the  lowest  degree  of 
hoUness;  between  the  last  exercise  of  an  un- 
converted and  the  first  of  a  converted  man ; 
between  the  last  feeble  struggle  of  selfishness 
and  the  first  feeble  exercise  of  love.'^  .... 
*' There  is  a  great  difference  between  su- 
preme selfishness  and  supreme  love  m  their 
extremes ;  but  between  the  last  feeble  influ- 
ence of  selfishness  and  the  first  feeble  exercise 
of  love  to  God,  the  difference  is  as  impercep- 
tible, as  between  the  adjacent  sides  of  the 
Equatorial  line.^^  .  .  .  .  "  The  point  B.  on  the 
diagram  represents  the  transition  line.  And 
it  may  be  asked.  Is  it  not  an  important  one  ? 
I  answer,  yes.  Important  on  many  accounts, 
but  not  because  of  any  special  influence  used 
then,  but  like  the  Equator,  as  a  measure  of 
relative  progress,  and  as  the  era  of  a  great 
change  in  all  our  moral  relations  and  cir- 
cumstances. Like  the  Equatorial  line,  how- 
ever, it  is  in  itself  oi  no  consequence  at  all." 

If  this  were  not  a  subject  too  serious  for 
ridicule,  Mr.  Gilbert  might  be  successfully 
assailed  by  this  weapon.  He  has  fairly  ex- 
posed himself  to  this  mode  of  attack.  But  if 
I  possessed  a  talent  for  the  humorous,  and 
were  disposed  to  indulge  in  it,  I  feel  too  much 
shocked  at  his  method  of  illustration  to  treat 


180  EEGENERATION — NEW  THEOLOGY. 

it.  with  ridicule.  He  appears  to  have  felt 
himself,  that  he  would  run  "  the  risk  of  being 
counted  very  presumptuous;"  and  I  doubt 
not  he  was  correct  in  his  apprehensions.  A 
majority  of  his  readers,  it  seems  to  me,  (unless 
they  belong  to  a  particular  class)  will  feel 
thai  he  has  "trodden  on  holy  ground,"  with- 
out "taking  his  shoes  from  off  his  feet;"  that 
he  has  "  put  forth  his  hand  and  touched  the 
ark  of  God,"  without  "  sanctifying  himself;" 
or  in  other  words,  that  he  has  so  presented 
the  subject,  as  to  make  him  appear  almost 
profane. 

This  very  circumstance,  however,  serves 
to  show  the  fallacy  of  these  new  doctrines. 
Mr.  Gilbert  uses  no  irreverent  language — he 
does  not  caricature  the  New  Theology.  The 
views  expressed  by  different  writers  as  quo- 
ted in  the  present  chapter,  if  carried  out  to 
their  full  extent,  and  illustrated  by  a  diagram, 
could  not  perhaps  be  exhibited  more  accu- 
rately than  by  that  which  has  been  presented. 
But  a  description  given  in  words,  which  have 
often  an  equivocal  or  doubtful  import,  pro- 
duces not  only  a  less  vivid,  but  a  less  accu- 
rate impression  than  that  which  is  made  by 
a  figure  faithfully  drawn  and  presented  to 
the  eye.  This  remark  is  true  not  only  in 
reference  to  landscapes,  &c.,  but  to  a  certain 
extent  in  regard  to  moral  and  religious  truth. 
Mr.  Gilbert  has  shown  by  his  diagram,  that 
it  is  capable  of  being  employed  in  the  present 
instance;  and  possibly  it  may  be  of  service 
to  the  cause  of  truth,  by  showing  in  a  more 


HUMAN  ABILITY.  181 

Striking  manner  than  can  be  exhibited  by- 
quoting  their  language,  the  dangerous  ex- 
tremes to  which  those  men  are  tending. 
Give  not  only  words  but  visibility  to  their 
doctrines — let  them  be  seen  as  well  as  heard 
— and  they  will  arouse  the  feelings  of  many 
who  have  not  before  been  seriously  alarmed. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


HUMAN  ABILITY,  REGENERATION,  &C.,  CONTINUED   FROM    THE 
PRECEDING  CHAPTER. 

We  observed  in  chapter  fifth  that  the  New 
Theology  concerning  the  nature  of  sin  and 
holiness,  viz;  that  they  consist  in  acts,  in- 
volves a  new  theory  of  regeneration.  What 
this  theory  is  may  be  learned  from  the  state- 
ments made  in  the  preceding  chapter.  It  is 
the  following:  that  in  regeneration  no  jwrm- 
ciple  of  holiness  is  implanted  in  the  soul,  prior 
to  the  exercise  of  holy  acts,  from  which  prin- 
ciple, or  "  moral  state  of  the  soul,"  those  acts 
proceed;  but  that  the  whole  change  consists 
in  the  acts  of  the  soul  itself;  which  from  hav- 
ing been  sinful  now  become  holy.  A  previ- 
ous holy  relish  or  taste,  which,  according  to 
the  old  doctrine,  is  essential  in  order  to  give 
to  these  acts  a  holy  character,  is  regarded  by 
these  new  system-makers,  as  unphilosophical 


182  REGENERATION OLD  THEOLOGY. 

and  absurd;  involving  what  they  term  physi- 
cal regeneration,  passivity,  &c.. 

If  by  physical  regeneration  is  meant  a 
mechanical  change  in  the  substance  of  the 
soul,  it  forms  no  part  of  the  Old  Theology — 
but  ifit  mean  a  direct  agency  of  the  Spirit  upon 
the  soul,  by  which  its  faculties  are  so  renewed, 
that  it  receives  the  principles  of  a  new  and  holy 
life,  and  therefore  may  be  properly  said  to 
possess  a  new  nature,  it  is  what  I  understand 
to  be  the  .true  doctrine.  "The  scriptural 
representations  of  conversion,  (says  Presi- 
dent Edwards,)  strongly  imply  and  signify  a 
change  of  nature;  such  as  being  born  again; 
becoming  new  creatures;  rising  from  the 
dead;  being  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  the 
mind;  dying  to  sin,  and  living  to  right- 
eousness; putting  off  the  old  man  and  put- 
ting on  the  new  man;  being  ingrafted  into 
a  new  stock;  having  a  divine  seed  implant- 
ed in  the  heart ;  being  made  partakers  of 

the  Divine  nature,^'  ^c "  He  [God] 

gives  his  Spirit  to  be  united  to  the  faculties 
of  the  soul  and  to  dwell  there  as  a  principle 
of  spiritual  life  and  activity.  He  not  only 
actuates  the  soul,  but  he  abides  in  it.  The 
mind  thus  endued  with  grace  is  possessed  of 
a  new  nature.'' — Edwards  on  the  Affections, 
vol.  5th. 

That  the  soul  is  passive  in  regeneration,  is 
the  doctrine  of  our  standards — and  it  neces- 
sarily results  from  the  preceding  view  con- 
cerning the  nature  of  the  change.  In  the 
chapter  on  Effectual  Calling,  both  are  present- 


DOCTRINE  OF  OUR  STANDARDS.  183 

ed  in  connexion  with  each  other.  The  change 
itself  is  declared  to  consist  in  "  enlightening 
the  minds  [the  minds  of  those  whom  he  effec- 
tually calls]  spiritually  and  savingly,  to  under- 
stand the  things  of  God,  taking  away  their 
heart  of  stone,  and  giving  unto  them  a  heart 
of  flesh;  renewing  their  wills,'^  &c.  It  is  then 
added,  in  the  next  section,  "This  effectual 
call  is  of  God's  free  and  special  grace  alone, 
not  from  any  thing  at  all  foreseen  in  man ; 
who  is  altogether  passive  therein,  until  being 
quickened  and  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit," 
&c.  The  former  part  of  this  quotation  ex- 
hibits the  implantation  of  a  holy  principle,  or 
the  change  of  our  natures,  by  conferring  spi- 
ritual illumination,  removing  the  heart  of 
stone  and  giving  a  heart  of  flesh,  and  by 
renewing  the  will.  The  latter  affirms  that 
this  new  nature  was  not  imparted  to  us  by 
our  own  agency,  but  by  God  who  works 
upon  us  by  his  Holy  Spirit,  to  quicken  and 
renew  us;  and  that  we  must  of  course,  as  to 
this  particular  point  in  the  history  of  the 
change,  be  the  passive  recipients  of  Divine 
grace — not  bringing  it  about  by  our  own  acts, 
but  being  acted  upon  by  the  renovating  pow- 
er of  God. 

This  doctrine,  however,  does  not  imply 
that  we  are  not  to  be  active  beforehand  in  the 
dihgent  use  of  the  means  of  grace — nor  that 
we  are  inactive  at  the  time,  with  respect  to 
the  effects  of  the  change.  Simultaneously 
with  this  change  and  as  the  immediate  con- 
sequence of  it,  the  sinner  is  "  persuaded  and 


184  REGENERATION DR.  COX. 

enabled  to  embrace  Jesus  Christ,  as  he  is 
freely  offered  to  him  in  the  gospel."  In  this 
he  is  not  passive,  but  active.  When  God 
"  by  his  almighty  power  determines  the  sinner 
to  that  which  is  good,"  or  in  other  words, 
gives  him  an  apprehension  of  the  excellence 
of  divine  things,  and  of  the  all-sufficiency  of 
Christ  as  his  Saviour,  and  thus  "  effectually 
draws"  him  to  Christ;  he  comes,  not  reluct- 
antly, but  "most  freely,  being  made  willing 
by  his  grace. "  Regeneration,  or  the  implant- 
ing of  a  holy  principle,  is  the  cause;  and  our 
conversion,  or  turning  to  God,  is  the  effect. 
In  the  former  we  are  passive,  in  the  latter 
active.  Though  in  the  order  of  time  they 
are  simultaneous,  in  the  order  of  nature  the 
former  is  the  antecedent,  the  latter  the  con- 
sequent; just  as  breathing,  though  simulta- 
neous with  the  existence  of  life,  is  neverthe- 
less the  effect  of  it,  and  would  never  occur, 
unless  life  had  been  previously  communi- 
cated. 

Dr.  Cox,  who  does  not  appear  to  have 
adopted  all  the  principles  of  the  New  Theo- 
logy, has  expressed  himself  on  the  subject  of 
regeneration  in  a  manner  very  different  from 
what  has  been  customary  among  Calvinistic 
writers.*  To  the  doctrine  that  "God  creates  or 


*  Since  the  publication  of  the  first  edition,  Dr.  Cox  has 
published  a  series  of  numbers  in  the  New  York  Evange- 
list, entitled  "  The  Hexagon,"  in  which  he  has  discussed 
at  length  several  important  points  of  difference  between 
the  Old  and  New  Schools,  and  sided  strongly  with  the 
latter,  maintaining  their  particular  views  of  doctrine. 


BIBLICAL  REPEKTORY.  185 

inserts  somQ holy pinnciph  in  us,  which  consti- 
tutes regeneration,  and  in  which  we  are  en- 
tirely passiv^e,  but  that  thereafter  we  actively 
do  our  duty;  he  strongly  objects,  and  says, 
*'  it  can  command  the  confidence  of  no  well 
disciplined  mind."  He  adds,  it  is  true,  "till 
we  have  both  a  definition  of  what  is  meant 
by  holy  principle  and  a  demonstration  of  its 
existence,"  &c. ;  and  he  wishes  to  have  it  un- 
derstood that  he  does  not  object  to  its  use,  if 
explained  in  a  particular  way — but  the  doc- 
trine, as  it  has  been  commonly  received,  he 
does  not  embrace.  In  his  letter  to  the  con- 
ductors of  the  Biblical  Repertory,  in  reply  to 
their  review  of  his  sermon,  he  asks,  "  Is  not 
a  Christian  active  in  all  his  moral  relations  ? 
In  believing  and  obeying  God?  Certainly 
active  in  the  total  progress  of  religion,  in  the 
soul  and  life:  then  why  not  also  in  its  rise? 
If  active  progressively,  then  why  not  initially 
too?  If  active  in  the  work  of  sanctification, 
why  not  in  the  whole  of  it,  in  its  commence- 
ment as  well  as  its  continuance ;  in  regenera- 
tion as  well  as  sanctification?  Hoiu  is  a  man 
regenerated^  but  as  he  believes  and  obeys  the 
gospel?  Is  he  regenerated  before  he  does 
this?  Is  he  more  dependent  in  regeneration 
one  whit  than  in  sanctification?"  What  he 
terms  the  passivity  doctrine,  or  the  doctrine 
of  passive  regeneration,  he  explicitly  and  fre- 
quently disavows. 

The  remarks  of  the  editors  of  the  Reper- 
tory, in  their  review  of  his  sermon,  are  so 
much  in  point,  that  we  shall  transcribe  a 
16 


186    EEGENERATION BIBLICAL  REPERTORY. 

paragraph  of  considerable  length,  in  the  place 
of  any  further  observations  of  ours  upon  this 
subject. 

"  As  to  the  point  which  Dr.  Cox  thinks  so 
*  intrinsically  absurd,'  and  about  which  he 
says  so  much,  whether  a  man  is  passive  in 
regeneration,  it  will  be  seen  that,  for  its  own 
sake,  it  does  not  merit  a  moment's  discussion. 
It  depends  entirely  on  the  previous  question. 
If  regeneration  be  that  act  of  the  soul  by 
which  it  chooses  God  for  its  portion,  there  is 
an  end  of  all  debate  on  the  subject.  For  no 
one  will  maintain  that  the  soul  is  passive  in 
acting.  But  if  there  be  any  change  in  the 
moral  state  of  the  soul,  prior  to  its  turning 
unto  God,  then  it  is  proper  to  say,  that  the 
soul  is  passive  as  to  that  particular  point ; 
that  is,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  author, 
and  the  soul  the  subject  of  the  change.  For 
all  that  is  meant  by  the  soul's  being  passive, 
is,  that  it  is  not  the  agent  of  the  change  in 
question.  Its  immediate  and  delightful  turn- 
ing unto  God  is  its  own  act;  the  state  of  mind 
which  leads  to  this  act  is  produced  directly 
by  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  whole  question 
is,  whether  any  such  anterior  change  is  ne- 
cessary. Whether  a  soul  polluted  and  degra- 
ded by  sin,  or  in  Scripture  language,  carnal, 
needs  any  change  in  its  moral  taste  before  it 
can  behold  the  loveliness  of  the  Divine  cha- 
racter. For  that  this  view  must  precede  the 
exercise  of  affection,  we  presume  will  not  be 
denied.  If  this  point  be  decided,  the  pro- 
priety of  using  the  word  passive  to  denote 


BIBLICAL    REPERTORY.  187 

that  the  soul  is  the  subject  and  not  the  agent 
of  the  change  in  question,  need  not  give  us 
much  trouble.  Sure  it  is  that  this  change  is 
in  Scripture  always  referred  to  the  Holy 
Spirit.  It  is  the  soul  that  repents,  believes, 
hopes  and  fears;  but  it  is  the  Holy  Spirit 
that  regenerates.  He  is  the  author  of  our 
faith  and  repentance  by  inducing  us  to  act, 
but  no  man  regenerates  himself.  The  soul, 
although  essentially  active,  is  still  capable  of 
being  acted  upon.  It  receives  impressions 
from  sensible  objects,  from  other  spirits  and 
from  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  every  sensation, 
there  is  an  impression  made  by  some  exter- 
nal object,  and  the  immediate  knowledge 
which  the  mind  takes  of  the  impression.  As 
to  the  first  point,  it  is  passive,  or  the  subject; 
as  to  the  second,  it  is  active,  or  the  agent. 
These  two  are  indeed  inseparably  connected, 

and  so  are  regeneration  and  conversion 

And  if  the  Holy  Spirit  does  make  such  an 
impression  on  the  mind,  or  exert  such  an 
influence  as  induces  it  immediately  to  turn  to 
God,  then  it  is  correct  to  say  that  it  is  passive 
in  regeneration,  though  active  in  conversion. 
However,  this  is  a  very  subordinate  point ; 
the  main  question  is,  whether  there  is  not  a 
holy  ^  relish,'  taste,  or  principle  produced  in 
the  soul  prior,  in  the  order  of  nature,  to  any 
holy  act  of  the  soul  itself.  If  Dr.  Cox  can 
show  this  to  be  *  intrinsically  absurd,'  we 
shall  give  up  the  question  of 'passivity'  with- 
out a  moment's  demur.  To  relinquish  the 
other  point;  however,  will  cost  us  a  painful 


188  REGENERATION    INSTANTANEOUS. 

Struggle.  It  will  be  giving  up  the  main  point 
in  debate  between  the  friends  and  opposers 
of  the  doctrine  of  grace  from  Augustine  to 
the  present  day.  It  will  be  the  renunciation  of 
what  Calvinists,  old  and  new,  have  believed 
to  be  the  scriptural  doctrine  of  original  right- 
eousness, original  sin,  and  efficacious  grace. 
It  will  be  the  rejection  of  that  whole  system 
of  mingled  sovereignty  and  love  which  has 
been  the  foundation,  for  ages,  of  so  many 
hopes,  and  of  so  much  blessedness  to  the 
people  of  God." 

We  mentioned  in  the  last  chapter  that  the 
New  Theology  involves  the  doctrine  of  gra- 
dual regeneration;  and  we  quoted  from  Mr. 
Gilbert's  pamphlet  to  show  that  this  senti- 
ment is  now  avowed  by  some  of  the  advo- 
cates of  the  new  system.  On  this  point  Dr. 
Griffin  remarks,  "The  evidence  of  the  change 
maybe  earlier  or  later  in  its  appearance,  and 
more  or  less  rapid  in  its  developments,  but 
the  change  itself  is  always  instantaneous.  Is 
not  such  an  idea  more  than  implied  in  the 
text?  [Ezek.  xi.  19.]  What  is  the  blessing 
promised?  Not  the  gradual  improvement 
of  an  old  temper,  but  "  a  new  spirit ;" — "  the 
stony  heart"  not  softened  by  degrees  into 
flesh,  but  by  one  decisive  effort  removed,  and 
a  heart  of  flesh  substituted  in  its  room."  .... 
"This  doctrine,  however,  does  not  militate 
against  the  idea  of  an  antecedent  prepara- 
tion in  the  conscience,  wrought  by  the  means 
of  grace  and  the  enlightening  influences  of 
the  Spirit. "-Pa.rk  Street  Lectures,  pp.  91,101. 


THE  spirit's  agency  DIRECT.  189 

These  means  according  to  our  standards 
are  *Uhe  word,  sacraments  and  prayer.'^  In 
answer  to  the  question,  How  is  the  word  made 
effectual  to  salvation?  the  following  answer 
is  given:  ''The  Spirit  of  God  maketh  the 
reading,  but  especially  the  preaching  of  the 
word,  an  effectual  means  of  enlightening, 
convincing  and  humbling  sinners,  of  driving 
them  out  of  themselves,  and  drawing  them 
unto  Christ,"  &c.  Thus  the  law  is  said  to 
be  "our  schoolmaster  to  lead  us  to  Christ;" 
"  The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting 
the  soul;"  "  Of  his  own  will  begat  he  us,  by 
the  word  of  truth,"  But  the  word,  let  it  be 
remembered,  is  only  the  means,  which  the 
Holy  Spirit  can  employ  or  not  as  he  pleases; 
and  which  when  he  does  employ  (as  is  usual- 
ly the  case)  does  not  become  effectual  to  sal- 
vation, till  he  by  a  direct  influence  upon  the 
heart,  prepares  it  to  receive  and  embrace  the 
truth.  Lydia  did  not  attend  to  the  things 
spoken  by  Paul,  until  "  the  Lord  opened  her 
heartP  In  order  that  David  might  behold 
wondrous  things  out  of  God's  law,  he  prayed 
that  God  would  "  open  his  eyes.^^  The  pri- 
mitive Christians  had  access  by  faith  into 
God's  grace,  and  rejoiced  in  the  hope  of  the 
glory  of  God,  exercising  the  grace  of  patience 
in  their  tribulations, "  because  the  love  of  God 
was  shed  abroad  in  their  hearts  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  given  unto  them." 

Though  all  these  texts  do  not  refer  to  re- 
generation in  the  restricted  sense,  they  prove 
the  doctrine  of  the  direct  influence  of  the 


190  DEPRAVITY. 

Spirit  upon  the  heart — and  it  is  for  this  pur- 
pose we  have  referred  to  them.  If  the  Spirit 
exerts  an  immediate  influence  upon  the  hearts 
of  believers,  in  order  to  make  the  word  effec- 
tual to  their  sanctification:  much  more  on  the 
hearts  of  sinners  to  make  it  effectual  to  their 
conversion.  In  the  mind  of  the  believer 
there  is  something  congenial  with  the  spirit 
of  the  gospel ;  something,  therefore,  for  Di- 
vine truth  to  act  upon  in  the  form  of  motives; 
but,  to  use  the  language  of  Dr.  Griffin,  "mo- 
tives can  never  change  an  unholy  temper; 
there  is  no  tendency  in  truth  to  change  a  de- 
praved ^  taste'  The  change  must  take  place 
before  light  can  act.'^ 

This  doctrine  of  the  direct  agency  of  the 
Spirit,  and  the  implantation  of  a  principle  of 
holiness  in  the  heart,  is  inseparably  connected 
\Y\\\\  the  sentiment  that  the  change  is  instan- 
taneous. Motives  operate  gradually  upon  the 
mind ;  but  the  communication  to  the  soul  of 
a  new  spiritual  taste,  is  the  work  of  a  mo- 
ment. We  either  possess  this  holy  temper 
or  we  do  not;  there  is  no  point  of  time  when 
we  have  neither  enmity  nor  love ;  or  when 
our  affections  are  suspended  in  equilibrio  be- 
tween the  two.  Our  souls  are  necessarily 
either  in  one  state  or  its  opposite;  and  our 
transition,  therefore,  from  one  to  the  other 
must  be  instantaneous;  as  when  God  said, 
"Let  there  be  light,  and  there  was  light." 

It  may,  perhaps,  be  thought  by  some  that 
the  difference  between  instantaneous  and 
gradual  regeneration  is  not  important,  since 


DOCTRINE  OF  OUR  STANDARDS.      191 

both  recognize  the  necessity  of  becoming 
holy.  But  a  Uttle  reflection  will  show  the 
contrary.  Gradual  regeneration  is  founded 
on  the  principle  that  there  is  something  good 
in  the  unregenerate  man,  which  needs  only 
to  be  fostered  and  cherished,  in  order  to  make 
him  holy.  Of  course  it  involves  a  denial  of 
total  depravity,  and  the  necessity  of  an  en- 
tire radical  change  of  character.  It  fosters 
pride  and  self-righteousness;  and  produces 
hostility  to  those  doctrines  of  grace  which 
distinguish  the  gospel  from  the  religion  of 
nature.  It  is,  in  short,  taking  a  step  towards 
infidelity. 

In  regard  to  human  ability,  our  Confession 
of  Faith  uses  the  following  language :  "  Man, 
by  his  fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly 
lost  all  ability  of  will  to  any  spiritual  good 
accompanying  salvation ;  so  as  a  natural  man 
being  altogether  averse  from  that  which  is 
good,  and  dead  in  sin,  is  not  able,  by  his  own 
strength  to  convert  himself,  or  prepare  him- 
self thereunto."  Some  have  endeavoured  to 
prove  from  this  passage  that,  according  to  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  depravity  belongs  exclu- 
sively to  the  will.  But  this  it  appears  to  me 
is  not  a  correct  exposition.  As  the  design  of 
the  chapter  was  to  treat  "  Of  Free  Will,"  it 
would  of  course  state  explicitly  what  eflect 
the  fall  had  upon  the  will,  without  speaking, 
as  a  matter  of  course,  concerning  the  other 
powers  of  the  soul.  There  is,  however,  a 
clause  introduced,  which  was  evidently  de- 
signed to    refer  to  the  whole  moral  man; 


192  SCRIPTURE  PROOFS. 

'^  Dead  in  sinP  The  preceding  clause,  viz. 
*'  so  as  a  natural  man  being  altogether  averse 
from  that  which  is  good,"  refers  to  the  will; 
but  to  this,  the  other  is  superadded — "  and 
dead  in  sirC^ — which  Avas  intended  to  con- 
vey an  additional  idea,  embracing,  perhaps, 
the  former,  but  amplifying  and  extending  it, 
so  as  to  include  the  depravity  of  our  whole 
nature.  This  will  appear  by  a  reference  to 
the  chapter  on  the  "  Fall  of  Man ;"  where  it 
reads  as  follows :  "  By  this  sin  they  [our  first 
parents]  fell  from  their  original  righteousness, 
and  communion  with  God,  and  so  became 
dead  in  sin,  and  wholly  defiled  in  all  the  facul- 
ties and  parts  of  soul  and  body."  It  will  also 
appear  by  a  reference  to  the  chapter  on  "  Ef- 
fectual Calling;"  where,  in  describing  the 
manner  in  which  we  are  brought  "  out  of  that 
stcite  of  sin  and  death,"  it  is  not  only  said 
that  our  wills  are  renewed,  but  our  minds 
spiritually  and  savingly  enlightened  to  under- 
stand the  things  of  God;  and  our  heart  of 
stone  taken  away  and  a  heart  of  flesh  given 
unto  us.  If  depravity  belongs  to  the  will 
only,  that  alone  needs  to  be  operated  upon  in 
effectual  calling.  It  is  evident,  therefore, 
that  our  standards  teach  the  doctrine  not  only 
that  the  will  is  depraved,  but  Ukewise  "  all 
the  faculties  of  the  soul." 

This  view  also  accords  with  Scripture. 
"  There  is  none  that  understandelh.''^  Rom. 
iii.  11.  "Having  the  understanding  dark- 
ened^ being  alienated  from  the  life  of  God 
through  the  ignorance  that  is  in  them,  be- 


DEPRAVITY SCRIPTURE  PROOFS.  193 

cause  of  the  blindness  of  their  heart."  Eph. 
iv.  18.  "  But  the  natural  man  receiveth  not 
the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  for  they  are 
foohshness  unto  him;  neither  can  he  know 
them,  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned." 
1  Cor.  ii.  14.  Here  it  is  manifest  that  our 
depravity  affects  the  understanding.  Hence 
in  conversion  it  is  necessary  that  we  be 
enlightened  to  discern  spiritual  things.  "The 
eyes  of  your  understanding  being  enlighten- 
ed." Eph.  i.  IS.  "For  God  who  commanded 
the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,  hath  shined 
in  our  hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  know- 
ledge of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus 
Christ."  2  Cor.  iv.  6.  "And  have  put  on  the 
new  man,  which  is  renewed  in  knowledge 
after  the  image  of  him  that  created  him." 
Col.  iii.  10. 

Depravity  is  also  predicated  of  the  heart 
and  conscience.  "The  heart  is  deceitful  above 
all  things,  and  desperately  wicked."  Jer.  xvii. 
9.  "But  unto  them  that  are  defiled  and 
unbelieving,  is  nothing  pure;  but  even  their 
mind  and  conscience  is  defiled."  Tit.  i.  15. 
Do  these  texts  refer  exclusively  to  the  will.^ 
or  do  they  not  include  also  the  other  moral 
powers?  As  the  heart  is  the  seat  of  the 
afi"ections;  to  say  that  the  heart  is  wicked,  is 
equivalent  to  declaring  the  affections  to  be 
depraved  and  alienated  from  God.  Accord- 
ingly, to  change  the  heart  is  to  give  us  a 
holy  temper — to  renew  our  aftections.  "The 
Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thine  heart, 
and  the  heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love  the  Lord 
17 


194  DEPRAVITY — SCRIPTURE  PROOFS. 

thy  God."  Deut.  xxx.  6.  "And  I  will  put  a 
new  spirit  within  you,  and  I  will  take  the 
stony  heart  out  of  their  flesh  and  will  give 
them  a  heart  of  flesh."  Ezek.  xi.  19.  When 
this  is  done,  our  conscience  will  likewise  be 
rectified.  "Having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from 
an  evil  conscience."  Heb.  x.  22.  Then  too 
the  will  which  is  controlled  by  t?ie  state  of 
the  heart,  is  sweetly  inclined  by  the  same 
Spirit,  to  choose  and  rest  upon  Christ,  as  the 
portion  of  the  soul.  "J^i^  people  shall  be 
willing  in  the  day  of  thy  power."  Psa.  ex.  3. 
From  this  view  of  the  subject  it  appears 
that  the  fall  has  aff'ected  the  whole  moral 
man.  What  God  says  of  Judah  is  applicable 
to  all  mankind.  "  The  whole  head  is  sick, 
and  the  whole  heart  faint.  From  the  sole  of 
the  foot  even  unto  the  head,  there  is  no  sound- 
ness in  it."  Isa.  i.  5,  6.  This  doctrine,  we 
admit,  is  very  humiliating,  and  calculated  to 
make  the  sinner  feel  his  dependence  upon 
God.  But  this,  instead  of  being  an  objec- 
tion, is  a  proof  of  its  correctness.  While  it 
must  not  be  so  interpreted  as  to  annihilate 
or  even  impair  the  sinner's  obligation,  or 
form  any  excuse  for  his  impenitence  and 
unbelief,  it  is  a  doctrine  which  is  pre-eminent- 
ly adapted  to  drive  him  from  those  refuges  of 
self-righteousness  and  self-sufficiency,  which 
prove  the  ruin  of  so  many  souls,  and  lead 
him  to  seek  salvation  only  through  the  grace 
and  righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  in- 
deed the  very  point  to  which  sinners  always 
come  before  they  embrace  the  Saviour. 


REMARKS  OF  DR.  WITHERSrOON.  195 

On  this  subject  Dr.  Witherspoon  uses  the 
following  language:  "On  a  conviction  of  our 
own  inabiUty,  one  would  think  we  should 
but  the  more  humbly  and  the  more  earnestly 
apply  to  Him,  who  is  all-sufficient  in  power 
and  grace.  The  deplorable  and  naturally 
helpless  state  of  sinners,  doth  not  hinder  ex- 
hortations to  them  in  Scripture;  and  there- 
fore takes  not  away  their  obligation  to  duty. 
See  an  address,  where  the  strongest  meta- 
phors are  retained,  the  exhortation  given  in 
these  very  terms,  and  the  foundation  of  the 
duty  plainly  pointed  out :  ^  Wherefore  he 
saith,  awake  thou  that  sleepest,  and  arise 
from  the  dead,  and  Christ  shall  give  thee 
hght.'  From  which  it  is  very  plain,  that  the 
moral  inability,  under  which  sinners  now  lie, 
as  a  consequence  of  the  fall,  is  not  of  such  a 
nature  as  to  take  away  the  guilt  of  sin,  the 
propriety  of  exhortation  to  duty,  or  the  neces- 
sity of  endeavours  after  recovery.'' ....  "I 
make  no  scruple  to  acknowledge,  that  it  is 
impossible  for  me;  nay,  1  find  no  difficulty 
in  supposing  that  it  is  impossible  for  any 
finite  mind  to  point  out  the  bounds  between 
the  ^dependence'  and  ^activity'  of  the  crea- 
ture." ....  *^  The  new  birth  is  a  ^supernatu- 
ral change;'  it  is  the  effect  of  the  power  of 
God;  it  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  I 
have  been  at  the  more  pains  to  establish  this 
truth,  because  I  am  persuaded,  that  until  it  be 
truly  received,  there  may  be  a  form,  but  there 
can  be  nothing  of  the  power  of  godUness." . . 


196      DEPENDENCE VIEWS  OF  WITHERSPOOPf. 

"Bat  what  shall  we  say?  Alas!  the  very- 
subject  we  are  now  speaking  of,  affords  a 
new  proof  of  the  blindness,  prejudice,  and 
obstinacy  of  sinners.  They  are  self-condemn- 
ed; for  they  do  not  act  the  same  part  in  simi- 
lar cases.  The  affairs  of  the  present  life  are 
not  managed  in  so  preposterous  a  manner. 
He  that  ploughs  his  ground,  and  throws  in 
his  seed,  cannot  so  much  as  unite  one  grain 
to  the  clod;  nay  he  is  not  able  to  conceive 
how  it  is  done.  He  cannot  carry  on,  nay,  he 
cannot  so  much  as  begin  one  single  step  of 
this  wonderful  process  toward  the  subsequent 
crop;  the  mortification  of  the  seed,  the  resur- 
rection of  the  blade,  and  gradual  increase,  till 
it  come  to  perfect  maturity.  Is  it,  therefore, 
reasonable  that  he  should  say,  ^  I  for  my  part 
can  do  nothing;  it  is,  first  and  last,  an  effect 
of  Divine  power  and  energy:  and  God  can 
as  easily  raise  a  crop  without  sowing  as  with 
it;  in  a  single  instant,  and  in  any  place,  as  in 
a  long  time  by  the  mutual  influence  of  soil 
and  season;  I  Avill  therefore  spare  myself  the 
hardship  of  toil  and  labour,  and  wait  with 
patience  till  I  see  what  he  will  be  pleased  to 
send?'  Would  not  this  be  madness?  Would 
it  not  be  universally  reputed  so?  And  would 
it  not  be  equal  madness  to  turn  the  grace 
of  God  into  licentiousness?  Believe  it,  the 
warning  is  equally  reasonable  and  equally 
necessary,  in  spiritual  as  in  temporal  things. 
*  Be  not  deceived,  God  is  not  mocked,  for 
whatsoever  a  man  soweth,  that  shall  he  also 


REMARKS  OF  MR.  FINNEY.  197 

reap :  for  he  that  soweth  to  the  flesh,  shall  of 
the  flesh  reap  corruption;  but  he  that  soweth 
to  the  Spirit,  shall  of  the  Spirit  reap  life  ever- 
lasting.' '' — Practical  Treatise  on  Regenera- 
tion, sect.  4. 

But  while  the  doctrine  of  human  inability 
and  dependence  upon  God,  as  understood 
and  believed  by  the  friends  of  the  Old  The- 
ology, does  not  destroy  accountableness,  nor 
impair  obligation,  nor  discourage  eff'ort;  but 
brings  the  sinner  to  his  proper  place,  before 
the  throne  of  Divine  mercy;  we  think  the 
doctrine  of  ability,  as  maintained  by  the 
advocates  of  the  New  Theology,  is  calculated 
to  produce  such  independence  of  feeling,  with 
regard  to  the  Spirit's  influences,  as  to  be  a  seri- 
ous obstacle  to  genuine  conversion.  Among 
the  "false  comforts  for  sinners,"  which  Mr. 
Finney  enumerates,  one  is,  "  telling  the  sin- 
ner to  p7'ay  for  a  new  heart.^^  He  asks, 
"  Does  God  say,  Pray  for  a  new  heart  ? 
Never.  He  says, '  Make  you  a  new  heart.' 
And  the  sinner  is  not  to  be  told  to  pray  to 
God  to  do  his  duty  for  him,  but  to  go  and  do 
it  himself." — Lectures  on  Revivals,  p.  318. 
Thus  it  appears,  we  must  not  direct  sinners 
to  seek  God  for  renewing  grace,  because  they 
have  sufficient  ability  of  their  own  to  per- 
form the  work.  To  preach  to  them  the  ne- 
cessity 9^.the  Spirit's  influences  while  exhort- 
ing them  to  duty,  would  be  according  to  him 
"  unphilosophical."  We  must  tell  them  "  to 
go  and  do  it  themselves."  What  kind  of  con- 
versions is  such  instruction  as  this  calculated 


198  REVIVALS — MR.  FINNEY. 

to  produce  ?*  It  is  no  wonder  that  the  revi- 
vals of  religion  which  have  occurred  within 
the  last  ten  years,  under  the  ministry  of  such 

*  Let  the  reader  judg-c  of  the  probable  effect  upon  the 
sinner  of  preaching  such  doctrines  as  are  developed  in  the 
following  conversation  between  a  licentiate,  a  student  from 
New  Haven,  and  two  highly  respectable  ministers,  in  1832. 
It  was  taken  down  at  the  time  by  one  of  the  ministers,  as 
he  has  informed  me,  "  the  paper  sealed  up  and  has  been 
kept  since  a  secret."  In  communicating  it  to  me  a  few 
weeks  ago,  he  observes,  "  If  you  judge  it  to  be  proper,  you 
are  now  at  liberty  to  use  the  document  in  your  forthcom- 
ing book  ;  suppressing  the  names  for  the  present,  but  con- 
sidering me  as  responsible  for  the  statement,  and  ready  to 
give  the  names  hereafter  if  necessary." 

*'  Mr. ,  [one  of  the  ministers,]  in  the  course  of 

general  conversation,  alluded  to  New  Haven  as  a  school 

of  Theology,  and  asked  finally  that  Mr. ,  [the  licen- 

tiate,]  would  state  what  were  the  peculiarities  o{  Professor 

Fitch's  scheme  of  natural  depravity.     Mr. avov^^ed 

himself  a  believer  in  that  scheme,  and  stated  among 
other  things,  in  substance"  as  follows  :  ("  many  of  the 
following  views,  he  said,  however,  were  his  oion,  and  not 
chargeable  upon  any  others,  or  any  particular  school:) 
that  '  moral  character  was  predicated  entirely  on  choice 
between  good  and  evil :  that  man  was  not  regarded  with 
displeasure  in  the  sight  of  God,  either  by  imputation  of 
original  sin,  or  as  having  a  disposition  to  evil.  He  was 
in  no  sense  a  sinner,  until  of  sufficient  age  and  capacity  to 
choose  for  himself;  and  if  there  was  a  period  in  his  exist- 
ence previous  to  that,  during  that  period  he  was  an  inno- 
cent being.'  " 

"  The  bearing  of  this  on  the  doctrine  of  regeneration 

was  then  suggested ;   whereupon  Mr.  stated  in 

substance,  that  he  did  not  regard  the  saying  of  Christ  to 
Nicodemus,  'that  which  is  Ijorn  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and 
that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit,''  as  im|,'ying  any 
thing  like  a  new  moral  nature,  opposite  to  his  first  nature, 
as  given  to  him  in  regeneration.  He  believed  that  sub- 
ject had  been  misunderstood.  There  was  indeed  a  neces- 
sity for  regeneration,  but  it  consisted  not  in  the  implanta- 
tion of  new  principles,  but  the  rational  turning  of  the 


REVIVALS MR.  FINNEY.  199 

men,  should  furnish  so  many  examples  of 
apostasy.  In  a  discourse  deUvered  by  Mr. 
Finney  in  Chatham  street  chapel  in  1836, 

same  principles  to  a  new  course.  As  to  the  way  in  which 
it  was  produced^  God's  help  was  indeed  necessary,  but  no 
more  so  than  in  every  other  action  of  man.  He  presented 
motives,  and  when  a  man  sincerely  made  up  his  resolution 
to  follow  them,  and  did  decide  to  do  so,  that  was  the  be- 
ginning of  a  new  life.'  Mr. asked  him  if  any  sin- 
ner ever  did  come  to  Christ  without  feeling  his  helpless 

and  lost  condition  7     JMr. said  '  he  thought,  yes; 

and  mentioned  his  own  case.'  " 

"The  bearing  of  the  snhiect  on  atonement  and  justijica- 

Hon  was  next  alluded  to ;  and  Mr. [the  licentiate,] 

observed  'that  it  was  a  scheme  which  did  indeed  run 
through  the  whole.  As  to  atonement  he  believed  in  it,  but 
he  seemed  to  consider  it  as  consisting  in  what  lay  between 
God  and  his  intelligent  universe  exclusively,  and  that  for 
laying  a  ground  of  justifying  his  own  proceedings;  as 
such,  a  man  ought  to  trust  in  or  believe  the  atonement : 
but  in  [the]  matter  of  personal  experience  we  had  nothing 
to  do  with  it :  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  in  no  sense 
imputed  to  us:  we  must  be  accepted  on  the  ground  of  our 
own  obedience.' " 

"  Much  was  said  also  of  the  practical  influence  of  such 

a  style  of  preaching;  and  it  was  objected  to  Mr. 's 

scheme,  that  taking  men  as  they  are,  they  would  be  likely 
to  interpret  his  views  of  their  own  powers  and  indepen- 
dency  as  even  more  favourable  to  themselves  than  he  pro- 
bably intended :   and  Mr. [one  of  the  ministers] 

remarked  that  as  the  gospel  was  represented  '  to  be  a  seek- 
ing and  saving  that  which  was  lost;^  'to  kill  and  make 
alive;'  he  had  always  felt  it  to  be  more  necessary  to  show 
men  their  helplessness  connected  with  their  guilt,  and  a 
way  of  hope,  than  to  persuade  them  of  their  own  powers. 

Mr. [the  licentiate,]  held  the  opposite  opinion.   He 

seemed  to  think  that  the  reason  why  many  more  were  not 
pious,  was,  that  too  many  and  unnecessary  difficulties 
were  left  in  the  way.  They  ought  to  be  reasoned  with 
m,ore:  show  them  that  this  work  is  not  so  hard  and  unrea- 
sonable: they  could  be  persuaded  to  make  a  choice  if  you 
would  only  present  the  thing  as  rational;  and  many  were 


200  REMARKS  OE  DR.  REED. 

are  found  snch  sentences  as  the  following:* 

"  You  profess  that  you  want  to  have  sinners 
converted.  But  what  avails  it  if  they  sink 
right  back  again  into  conformity  to  the 
world?"  .  .  .  .  "  Where  are  the  proper  results 
of  the  glorious  revivals  we  have  had?'^  .... 
"  The  great  body  of  them  [the  converts  of 
the  last  ten  years]  are  a  disgrace  to  religion.'^ 

"Of  what  use  is  it  to  convert  sinners 

and  make  them  such  Christians  as  these  ?'' 
This  is  an  acknowledgment  that  the  fruits  of 
those  revivals  are  not  such  as  were  antici- 
pated— and  so  long  as  converts  are  made 
under  the  influence  of  such  doctrines,  and 
that  system  of  measures  which  corresponds 
with  them,  we  must  expect  similar  results. 
Their  "goodness  will  be  as  the  morning 
cloud,  and  as  the  early  dew  it  will  pass 
away." 

The  following  remarks  of  Dr.  Reed,  one 
of  the  delegates  from  England  to  the  Ameri- 

thus  won,  where  this  scheme  was  now  adopted.'  He  said 
much  of  the  figurative  language  of  Scripture,  and  seemed 
to  think  that  such  passages  as  '  The  carnal  mind  is  enmity 
against  God,'  did  not  apply  to  men  at  the  present  age  of 
the  world,  but  peculiarly  to  the  Jews,  on  account  of  their 
prejudices.  The  opposition  which  we  have  often  witnessed 
against  religion  in  natural  men  is  not  so  much  against 
God  or  reUgion  itself,  as  against  the  prejudiced  represen- 
tations of  it  by  mistaken  teachers.'  " 

This  individual  who  is  denominated  by  my  correspond- 
ent "  a  respectable  young  man,"  was  at  that  time,  as  I 
infer  from  his  letter,  seeking  a  settlement  in  a  Presby- 
terian congregation. 

*  We  quote  from  the  Literary  and  Theological  Review. 
The  sermon  it  appears  was  reported  in  the  New  York 
Evangelist,  February  13,  1836. 


REMARKS  OF  DR.  REED.  201 

can  churches,  accord  with  the  sentiments  and 
observation  of  very  many  in  America,  Avho 
have  been  "witnesses  of  these  things.'^  "The 
New  Divinity  and  the  New  Measures,  have 
greatly  coalesced,  and  they  have  given  for 
the  time,  currency  to  each  other.  Many 
pious  and  ardent  persons  and  preachers,  from 
the  causes  to  which  I  have  adverted,  were 
disposed  to  think  that  the  new  opinions  had 
all  the  advantage  in  a  revival,  and  this  gave 
them  all  the  preference  in  their  judgment. 
Where  they  in  connexion  with  the  New 
Measures  have  been  vigorously  applied,  there 
has,  indeed,  been  no  want  of  excitement. 
The  preacher  who  firmly  believes  that  the 
conversion  of  men  rests  on  the  force  of  moral 
suasion,  is  not  unlikely  to  be  persuasive. 
And  the  hearer  who  is  told  '  he  can  convert 
himself,'  that  it  is  ^  as  easy  for  him  to  do  so 
as  to  walk,'  that  he  has  only  '  to  resolve  to 
do  it  and  it  is  done,'  is  not  unlikely  to  be 
moved  into  self-complacent  exertion.  But  it 
may  be  asked,  does  either  the  preacher  or 
the  hearer  possess  those  sentiments  which 
are  likely  to  lead  to  a  true  conversion,  and 
to  bring  forth  fruits  meet  for  repentance?" 

"  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them. 
There  has  certainly  been  good  done  where 
there  has  been  much  evil,  for  with  this  evil 
there  has  been  a  large  portion  of  divine 
truth.  But  I  fear  not  to  say,  that  where 
there  has  been  the  largest  infusion  of  the 
New  Divinity  into  the  New  Measures,  there 
has  been  the  greatest  amount  of  unwarrant- 


202  OLD  AND  NEW  THEOLOGY. 

able  extravagance.  There  has  been  great 
excitement,  much  animal  emotion  and  sym- 
pathy, high  resolves,  and  multiplied  conver- 
sions, but  time  has  tested  them  and  they 
have  failed.''^ 


CHAPTER  IX. 


A  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  OLD  AND  NEW  THEOLOGY,  BY  WAY 
OF  REVIEW,  AND  A  NOTICE  OF  THE  PERFECTIONISM  OF  MR. 
FINNEY. 


That  the  reader  may  see  at  a  single  view 
the  most  prominent  points  of  difference  be- 
tween the  Old  and  New  Theology,  we  shall 
exhibit  them  in  few  words  by  way  of  con- 
trast : — in  doing  which  we  shall  take  a  kind 
of  retrospect  of  the  volume,  and  exemplify 
some  of  the  principles  which  have  been  no- 
ticed, by  a  few  additional  quotations. 

1.  The  Old  Theology  places  God  upon  the 
throne  of  the  universe,  and  makes  him  com- 
petent to  say  concerning  all  creatures  and 
events,  "  My  counsel  shall  stand,  and  I  will 
do  all  my  pleasure."  The  New  makes  him 
so  dependent  upon  the  volitions  of  moral 
agents,  that  he  is  liable  to  suffer  disappoint- 
ment and  to  have  his  happiness  diminished, 
by  the  uncontrollable  agency  of  men: — and 
this  not  only  in  the  present  world,  but  in  the 


CONTRAST — THE    FALL.  203 

next.  Prof.  Fitch  affirms  that  God's  "  pur- 
pose was  to  confer  on  the  beings  composing 
his  moral  kingdom,  the  power  of  voUtion  and 
choice,  and  to  use  the  best  influence  God 
could  use  on  the  whole  to  secure  the  holiness 
and  prevent  the  sin  of  such  beings,  ivho 
themselves,  and  not  lie,  were  to  have  imme- 
diate power  over  their  volitions.''^  Again: 
"  We  affirm  that  the  causes  in  kind  which 
originate  sin,  being  inseparably  inherent  in  a 
moral  universe,  may  so  accumulate  in  de- 
gree under  every  system  of  Providence  and 
government  which  can  be  pursued,  as  to 
render  sure  the  occurrence  of  sin.  If  in  a 
universe  of  such  beings,  no  jjossible  system 
of  Providence  adopted  and  pursued  throvgh 
ETERNITY  ca7i  shut  out  all  occasions  of  the 
outbreakings  of  sin,  it  is  easy  to  see,  that  as 
to  his  preventing  it,  sin  is  unavoidably  inci- 
dental to  the  acts  of  the  Creator  in  creating 
and  governing  such  a  kingdom."  ....  "  The 
causes  in  kind  which  are  known  to  originate 
sin  in  the  present  universe,  must  necessarily 
be  present  in  any  possible  universe  of  moral 

beings.'^ "If  the  causes  of  defecti- 

bility  are  thus  inseparable  from  the  exist- 
ence of  a  universe  of  moral  beings,  is  there 
not  a  ground  of  probability  that  they  will 
lead  to  actual  defection  in  every  possible 
system  as  well  as  in  this?^^ — Review  of  Dr. 
Fisk's  Discourse  on  Predestination  and  Elec- 
tion, and  a  Defence  of  that  Review  in  the 
Christian  Spectator.  What  low  and  unwor- 
thy views  does  this  statement  convey  con- 


204        CONTRAST — COVENANT  WITH  ADAM. 

cerning  the  Deity!  What  dismal  prospects 
it  presents  to  the  expectant  of  future  and 
eternal  bliss ! 

2.  The  Old  Theology  regards  the  fall  of 
man  as  a  catastrophe  so  direful  in  its  effects, 
that  no  power  less  than  Omnipotence  is  ade- 
quate to  "  quicken  sinners  who  are  dead  in 
trespasses  and  sins.^'  The  New  treats  it  as 
a  calamity, which  the  sinner  is  able,  since  the 
introduction  of  a  system  of  mercy  through 
Jesus  Christ,  to  repair  himself.  Says  Mr. 
Finney,  "Now  suppose  God  to  have  come 
out  upon  Adam  with  the  command  of  the 
text,  'Make  you  a  new  heart,  for  why  will  ye 
die?'  Could  Adam  have  justly  answered. 
Dost  thou  think  that  I  can  change  my  own 
heart?  Can  I,  who  have  a  heart  totally  depra- 
ved, can  I  change  that  heart?  Might  not  the 
Almighty  have  answered  him  in  words  of 
fire,  Rebel,  you  have  just  changed  your  heart 
from  holiness  to  sin,  now  change  it  back 
from  sin  to  holiness." — Sermons  on  Impor- 
tant Subjects,  p.  13.  See  also  Mr.  Barnes' 
remarks  on  the  text,  "  When  we  were  with- 
out strength,  Christ  died  for  the  ungodly,"  in 
chap.  vii.  We  shall  likewise  give  one  or  two 
additional  quotations  in  the  present  chapter, 
under  the  head  of  Ability. 

3.  The  Old  Theology  maintains  that  Adam 
was  the  federal  head  of  his  posterity,  and 
that,  by  breaking  the  covenant  under  which 
he  was  placed,  he  involved  not  only  himself, 
but  all  his  posterity  in  sin  and  misery — the 
guilt  of  his  first  sin  being  imputed  to  them, 


CONTRAST — IMPUTATION,  ETC.  205 

or  set  over  in  law  to  their  account ;  so  that 
they  all  come  into  the  world  with  depraved 
and  sinful  natures.  Tlie  New  denies  that 
we  sustain  a  covenant  relation  to  Adam  ; 
and  maintains  that  he  was  only  our  natural 
head  and  father— from  whose  sin  it  results 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  according  to  the  common 
laws  of  human  society,  and  that  all  his  pos- 
terity become  sinners  when  they  arrive  at 
moral  agency;  before  which  time  they  are 
neither  sinful  nor  holy;  and  that  they  be- 
come sinners  by  their  own  voluntary  act, 
after  a  trial,  it  would  seem,  similar  to  what 
Adam  had.  Says  Dr.  Taylor,  in  reply  to  a 
supposed  objection,  "  Why  render  this  uni- 
versal sinfulness  of  a  race,  the  consequence 
of  one  man's  act  ?  why  not  give  to  each  a 
fair  trial  for  himself?"  /'  I  answer,  God 
does  give  to  each  a  fair  trial  for  himself. 
Not  a  human  being  does  or  can  become  thus 
sinful  or  dej^raved  but  by  his  oivn  choice. 
God  does  not  compel  him  to  sin  by  the  na- 
ture  he  gives  him.  Nor  is  his  sin,  although 
a  consequence  of  Adam's  sin,  in  such  a  sense 
its  consequence  as  not  to  be  a  free  voluntary 
act  of  his  own.  He  sins  freely,  voluntarily. 
There  is  no  other  way  of  sinning.  God, 
(there  is  no  irreverence  in  saying  it)  can  make 
nothing  else  sin,  but  the  sinner's  act."  Con- 
cio  ad  Clerum. 

Mr  Barnes  observes :  "  If  it  were  a  dogma 
of  a  pretended  revelation,  that  God  might  at 
pleasure,  and  by  an  arbitrary  decree,  make 
crime  pass  from  one  individual  to  another — 


206  TESTIMONY  OF  UNITARIANS. 

Striking  onward  from  age  to  age,  and  reach- 
ing downward  to  ^  the  last  season  of  record- 
ed time' — punished  in  the  original  offender; 
re-punished  in  his  children;  and  punished 
again  and  again,  by  infinite  multiples,  ia 
countless  ages  and  individuals ;  and  all  this 
judicial  infliction,  for  a  single  act,  performed 
cycles  of  ages  before  the  individuals  lived, 
we  see  not  how  any  evidence  could  shake 
our  intrinsic  behef  that  this  is  unjust  and  im- 
probable."   "We  never  can  adopt 

that  system  which  tramples  on  the  analogies 
which  actually  exist,  and  holds  men  to  be 
personally  answerable,  and  ^diWdWy  punish- 
edhj  a  just  God,  for  an  act  committed  thou- 
sands of  years  before  they  were  born.  Such 
a  doctrine  is  no  where  to  be  found  in  the 
Scriptures." — Introductory  Essay  to  Butler's 
Analogy,  pp.  35,  39. 

All  that  we  deem  it  necessary  to  say 
concerning  the  views  contained  in  these  ex- 
tracts, is,  that  Unitarians  consider  them 
^^ sound  and  lucid.^^  In  the  Review  of  Mr. 
Barnes'  Notes  on  the  Romans,  in  the  Chris- 
tian Examiner,  already  referred  to,  [a  Unita- 
rian Quarterly]  the  reviewer  says:  "  On  the 
subject  of  man's  nature,  capacities,  and  duty, 
our  author  is  sound  and  lucid.  The  idea  of 
hereditary  depravity  he  spurns,  as  unworthy 
of  even  a  passing  notice.  He  asserts  repeat- 
edly that  men  sin  only  in  their  own  joerson, 
in  themselves,  as  indeed  how  can  they  sin  in 
any  other  way  ?  The  imputation  of  Adam's 
transgression  he  treats  as  a  scholastic  absur- 


CONTRAST — THE  ATONEMENT.      207 

dity."  .  ..."  Of  the  figment  of  Adam's 
federal  headship  and  the  condemnation  of 
his  posterity  for  partnership  in  his  sin,  Mr. 
Barnes,  says  '  there  is  not  one  word  of  it  in 
the  Bible.'"* 

4.  The  Old  Theology  maintains  that  the 
atonement  consisted  in  rendering  satisfaction 
to  Divine  justice  by  the  vicarious  sufferings 
of  Christ,  who  endured  in  our  stead  the  pen- 
alty of  the  law,  and  offered  up  himself  an 
acceptable  sacrifice  to  God :  by  which  offer- 
ing God's  "  favour  was  propitiated  for  us," 
his  law  magnified  and  his  government  sus- 
tained: so  that  without  doing  violence  to  his 

*  The  views  of  Socinus  are  as  follows: 

Quest.  1.  "Is  it  in  our  power  fully  to  obey  the  com- 
mandments of  God  ?" 

Answ.  "  Certainly;  for  it  is  evident,  that  the  first  man 
was  so  formed  by  God,  that  he  was  endued  with  free  will ; 
and  no  reason  existed  why  he  should  be  deprived  of  this 
power  after  the  fall;  nor  was  it  consistent  with  the  justice 
of  God,  that  man  should  be  deprived  of  free  will.  Accord- 
ingly, in  the  punishment  inflicted  on  his  sin,  there  is  no 
mention  made  of  any  such  loss." 

Quest.  2.  "  But  is  not  the  will  of  man  vitiated  by 
original  sin  ?" 

Answ.  "  There  is  no  such  thing  as  original  sin ;  the 
Scripture  teaches  no  such  doctrine ;  and  the  will  of  man 
could  not  be  vitiated  by  a  cause  which  had  no  existence. 
The  sin  of  Adam  being  a  single  act  could  not  corrupt  his 
own  nature,  much  less  had  it  power  to  deprave  the  nature 
of  all  his  posterity.  That  this  sin  should  be  charged  on 
them,  is,  as  has  been  said,  a  doctrine  unknown  to  the 
Scriptures ;  and  it  is  utterly  incredible,  that  God,  who  is 
the  fountain  of  equity,  should  be  willing  to  impute  it  to 
them." — Racovian  Catechism,  compiled  from  the  writings 
of  Socinus,  and  published  A.  D.  1606;  translated  for  the 
Biblical  Repertory ;  q.  v. 


208      CONTRAST THE  ATONEMENT. 

holy  nature,  or  relinquishing  the  claims  of 
his  law,  or  dishonouring'  his  government,  he 
secured  the  salvation  of  those  who  were 
given  to  Christ  in  the  covenant  of  redemp- 
tion;  [John  xvii.  2;  Isa.  liii.  11,  12;]  and 
laid  the  foundation  for  a  free  ojfer  of  mercy 
to  all  who  hear  the  gospel.  Mark  xvi.  15. 
John  iii.  16. 

The  New  Theology  considers  the  atone- 
ment as  involving  a  suspension  of  the  penal- 
ty of  the  law,  and  as  consisting  in  a  "  syin- 
bolical  display''^  to  the  universe,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  producing  such  an  impression  of 
God's  haired  to  sin,  as  would  render  it  safe 
and  proper  for  him  as  moral  Governor,  to 
bestow  pardon  upon  sinners:  and  as  to  sin- 
ners themselves,  it  is  an  ^^  experiment/^  nidide 
by  God  for  their  salvation;  which,  through 
his  impotency  to  control  moral  agents,  may 
fail  of  its  intended  result.*  Among  other 
relations  of  the  atonement  discussed  by  Mr. 
Jenkyn,  he  considers  it  in  relation  to  the  pur- 
poses and  providences  of  God.  Under  the 
former  he  observes,  "  The  various  dispensa- 
tions of  probation  are  various  experiments 
in  moral  government,  in  which  God  submits 
his  own  plans  and  ways  to  the  acceptance 
and  for  the  use  oi  free  agents.     If  any  ob- 

*  I  have  not  met  with  any  writer  who  expressed  him- 
self in  this  revolting  form,  except  Mr.  Jenkyn,  in  his  work 
on  the  Atonement.  But  this  is  a  correct  statement,  it 
appears  to  me,  of  the  doctrine,  as  held  by  tliose  (if  they 
are  consistent)  who  in  connexion  with  the  New  School 
view  of  atonement,  adopt  also  the  new  theory  concerning 
the  character  and  government  of  God. 


CONTRAST — THE  ATONEMENT.  209 

ject  to  the  word  ^experiments  I  beg  to  refer 
them  for  the  meaning  of  it,  to  the  parable  of 
the  barren  fig  tree,  and  to  that  of  the  hus- 
bandman sending  his  servants,  and  afterwards 
his  son  to  the  vineyard.  These  dispensations 
or  experiments  are  capable  oi failure.  The 
Eden  experiment  failed — and  the  Sinai  ex- 
periment  failed.  Such  susceptibility  oi fail- 
ure has  been  shown  to  be  incidental  to  a 
moral  government  and  a  state  of  trial."  Un- 
der Its  relation  to  providence  he  says,  "The 
measures  of  providence  are  liable  to  failure. 
A  medicine  may  fail,  notwithstanding  the  vir- 
tue which  providence  has  given  it.  The  crop 
of  the  husbandman  may  fail,  notwithstanding 
the  provision  that  seed  time  and  harvest  time 
shall  continue.  The  rnorbid  fear  of  acknow- 
ledging such  a  liableness  to  failure  in  the 
measures  of  providence  is  unaccountable, 
when  God  declares  his  own  government  of 
the  Jews,  under  the  theocracy,  to  have  failed 
of  its  end.  *In  vain  have  I  smitten  them, 
they  have  refused  to  receive  correction.'  Jer. 
ii.  30.  The  word  of  God  distinctly  and  ex- 
pressly recognizes  the  same  liableness  to  fail- 
ure in  the  great  measure  of  atonement.  Are 
you  sure  that  it  is  not  attachment  to  system 
rather  than  attachment  to  the  truth  that  makes 
you  hesitate  to  avow  it?"  Pp.  97, 168.  Quere. 
If  God's  "■plan''''  or  "  experiments^  or  "  tnea- 
sure  of  atonement, ^^  is  liable  \o  failure;  and 
if  it  does  fail  in  numerous  instances,  as  Mr. 
Jenkyn  intimates,  and  elsewhere  admits,  what 
security  have  we  that  it  will  not  fail  alto- 
18 


210      CONTRAST — cueist's  RIGHTEOUS^^ESS. 

gether?  What  if  it  should  happen,  that  when 
"  submitted  to  the  acceptance  of  free  agents,^^ 
they  should  «//  object  to  it,  and  refuse  to  com- 
ply with  its  conditions!  Has  God  power  to 
control  the  exercise  of  their  free  agency  and 
persuade  them  to  change  their  minds?  or 
may  they  not,  in  despite  of  his  mightiest  in- 
fluence, persist  in  rejecting  Christ,  and  so 
despoil  him  of  his  Mediatorial  reward! 

5.  The  Old  Theology  arrays  the  believer 
in  the  robe  of  Christ's  righteousness;  which 
being  imputed  to  him  and  received  by  faith, 
is  the  ground  of  his  justification  before  God. 
"  This  is  his  name  whereby  he  shall  be  called, 
The  Lord  our  Righteousness."  Jer.  xxiii. 
6.  "And  be  found  in  him,  not  having  mine 
own  righteousness,  which  is  of  the  law,  but 
that  which  is  through  the  faith  of  Christ,  the 
righteousness  of  God  by  faith."  Phil.  iii.  9. 
"  And  to  her  [the  Lamb's  wife,  the  church] 
was  granted,  that  she  should  be  arrayed  in 
fine  linen,  clean  and  white:  for  the  fine  linen 
is  the  righteousness  of  saints."  Rev.  xix.  8. 
"  You  have  here,"  says  Henry,  "  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  bride,  how  she  appeared;  in  fine 
linen,  clean  and  white,  which  is,  the  right- 
eousness of  saints ;  in  the  robes  of  Chrisfs 
righteousness,  both  imputed  for  justification, 
and  imparted  for  sanctification." 

The  New  Theology  discards  the  doctrine 
of  imputed  righteousness,  and  maintains  that 
the  believer's  faith,  being  an  act  which  God 
approves,  and  which  leads  to  other  holy  acts, 
is  reckoned  to  him  for  righteousness ;  and  in 


CONTRAST. — JUSTIFICATION.  211 

consequence  of  it  God  pardons  his  sin  and 
receives  him  into  favour.  ^'  Faith,"  says  Mr. 
Finney,  "  is  the  appointed  instrument  of  our 
justification,  because  it  is  the  natural  instru- 
ment of  sanctification.  It  is  the  instrument  of 
bringing  us  back  to  obedience,  and  therefore  is 
designated  asthe  means  of  obtaining  the  bless- 
ings of  that  return.  It  is  not  imputed  to  us  by 
an  arbitrary  act,  for  what  it  is  not,  but  for 
what  it  is,  as  the  foundation  of  all  real  obedi- 
ence to  God.  This  is  the  reason  why  faith  is 
made  the  medium  through  which  pardon 
comes.  It  is  simply  set  down  to.  us  for  what  it 
really  is;  because  it  first  leads  us  to  obey  God 
from  a  principle  of  love  to  him." — Lectures 
to  Professing  Christians,  p.  221. 

Which  of  these  doctrines  is  more  calculated 
to  humble  the  creature  and  to  honour  Christ? 
"  If  faith  itself  is  our  justifying  righteousness, 
then  it  justifies  as  a  work,  as  truly  as  any 
other  works  could;  and"  ....  "if  a  man  is 
justified  on  account  of  the  act  of  believing, 
and  that  act  he  can  perform  by  the  power  of 
free  will,  he  has  as  much  ground  of  boasting 
as  he  could  possibly  have,  if  he  had  been  jus- 
tified by  other  works." — Dr.  Alexander. 

6.  The  Old  Theology  places  the  sinner  at 
the  threshold  of  sovereign  mercy,  a  depend- 
ent though  guilty  suppliant  for  grace  and 
salvation.  The  New  gives  him  sufficient 
ability  to  do  all  that  God  requires  of  him, 
without  Divine  aid.  In  a  Review  of  Wat- 
son^s  Institutes  in  the  Christian  Spectator, 
are  found  the  following :  "  He  [Mr.  Watson] 


212  CONTRAST — HUMAN  ABILITY. 

repeatedly  speaks  of  the  power  of  the  will, 
by  which  he  intends,  of  course,  its  ^  gracious 
ability'  before  the  fall,  as  being  lost  by  Adam, 
*for  himself  and  for  his  descendants.' "  .  .  .  . 
"  Admitting  it  to  be  true  in  Adam's  case,  that 
by  sinning  he  was  shorn  of  his  power  to  obey 
God,  what  has  this  to  do  with  his  jjosterity? 
The  principle  assumed  in  the  argument,  ren- 
ders it  impossible,  that  their  moral  agency 
should  be  unhinged,  until  they  exist  and  sin; 
therefore  Jldam's  sin  could  have  no  more 
tendency  to  destroy  their  power  to  choose 
good,  or  to  set  their  teeth  on  edge,  than  it 
had  to  produce  the  same  effects  upon  Satan 

and  his  apostate  host." "  We  should 

like  to  know,  whether  the  admirers  of  Mr. 
Watson  believe  it  impossible  for  God  to  cre- 
ate a  being,  2)ossessi?ig  in  himself  the  ability 
to  choose  good  and  be  holy,  without  the  gift 
of  the  Spirit?  and  if  so,  where  is  his  omni- 
potence? If  it  is  admitted,  that  he  can  create 
such  a  being,  we  ask  whether  the  principles 
of  Divine  government  do  not  fully  demon- 
strate, that  m,an  is  such  a  being?  If  he  is 
not,  is  God's  government  adapted  to  him? 
What  notion  can  be  formed  of  a  subject  of 
moral  government,  who  is  destitute  of  moral 
liberty?  or  in  other  words,  who,  in  every  in- 
stance of  obedience  or  disobedience,  does  not 
act  with  inherent  power  to  the  contrary 
choice?"*— Ch.  Spec.  1835,  pp.  376,  377. 
7.  The  Old  Theology  makes  regeneration 

*  Concerning  the  power  of  contrary  choice,  see  Dr* 
Beecher's  views  and  Dr.  Harvey's  remarks  upon  them  in 
chapter  vii. 


CONTRAST THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  213 

a  radical  change — a  change  in  the  disposi- 
tion and  temper  of  the  sinner,  as  well  as  in 
his  acts.  The  New  regards  it  as  merely  giv- 
ing a  different  direction  to  our  constitutional 
desires;  but  appears  to  make  httle  or  no  dif- 
ference between  the  principles  of  action,  in 
converted  and  unconverted  men.  They  differ 
only  as  to  the  "  end  of  pursuit."  In  refer- 
ence to  a  sentiment  advanced  by  Dr.  Griffin, 
that  the  sinner  has  no  taste  for  holiness,  and 
therefore  cannot  be  regenerated  by  molives, 
Mr.  Gilbert  remarks,  "The  impenitent  sinner 
has  no  ^  taste'  for  conviction;  his  unholy  tem- 
per is  as  really  opposed  to  truth  as  to  holi- 
ness; and  this  philosophy  would  make  it  as 
impossible  to  convict  as  to  convert  him;  to 
sanctify,  as  to  regenerate  him.  The  uncon- 
verted man  has  no  ^  taste'  for  conviction,  nor 
the  converted  man  for  'tnore  sanctification." 
Mark:  "  The  unconverted  man  has  no  taste 
for  conviction,  nor  the  converted  man  for 
MORE  sanctification  I"  What  then  is  the  dif- 
ference between  the  taste  or  temper  or  dis- 
position, of  an  impenitent  sinner,  and  a  child 
of  God?  For  aught  we  can  perceive,  they 
are  precisely  the  same. 

8.  The  Old  Theology  gives  honour  to 
Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit — the  New  has  a 
tendency  to  throw  them,  particularly  the  lat- 
ter, into  the  shade.  "You  see  (says  Mr.  Fin- 
ney) how  unphilosophical  it  is,  while  pressing 
the  sinner  to  submission,  to  divert  his  mind 
and  turn  his  attention  to  the  subject  of  the 
Spirit's  influence.     While  his  attention  is  di- 


214  CONTRAST — PREACHING  CHRIST. 

reeled  to  that  subject,  his  submission  is  impos- 
sible." Sermons  on  Important  Subjects,  p.  61. 
Of  course,  those  who  would  be  instrumental 
in  converting  sinners,  must  say  little  or  no- 
thing about  the  Spirit.*  And  it  is  true,  as  a 
matter  oi  fact,  that  the  class  of  preachers  to 
which  we  now  refer,  say  almost  as  little  about 
Christ  as  about  the  Spirit.  They  preach  much 
about  submittiiig  to  God;  but  they  seldom 
exhibit  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  in 
his  Mediatorial  character,  and  the  duty  of 
embracing  him  as  a  Saviour.     The  Apostolic 

*  1  have  in  my  possession  a  written  statement  com- 
municated to  me  by  a  very  respectable  minister,  which 
affords  another  illustration  of  this  sentiment.  Says  he, 
"  In  the  summer  of  1832,  while  travelling  in  the  valley  of 

the  Mississippi,  1  spent  a  few  weeks  in  the  city  of , 

and  gave  assistance,  as  I  was  able,  by  request  of  the 

pastor  in church  of  that  place.     Unusual  attention 

to  religion  existed  when  I  arrived,  and  continued  for 
some  time.  A  strong  tendency  was  manifested  both  to 
new  doctrines  and  new  measures.  One  evening  when  on 
the  way  to  the  church  with  the  pastor,  where  I  had  en- 
gaged  to  preach,  he  requested  I  should  say  nothing  in  my 
preaching,  concerning  the  injluences  of  the  Spirit,  as  he 
had  new  views  on  repentance.  He  did  not  deny  the  work 
of  the  Spirit,  but  thought  it  should  not  be  preached.  He 
was  then  and  still  remains  a  leading  member  of  his  Synod." 
To  this  we  will  add  the  following  : 

A  former  student  of  Dr.  Taj'lor  has  informed  me,  ver- 
bally, that  he  heard  Dr.  Taylor  advance  the  sentiment  in 
two  different  sermons,  '■'■that  sinners  must  act  in  the  work 
of  conversion  just  as  if  there  was  no  Holy  Ghost."  To 
prove  the  truth  of  his  remark,  he  alluded  to  Acts  xix.  2. 
"We  have  not  so  much  as  heard  whether  there  be  any 
Holy  Ghost."  He  had  heard,  also,  through  others,  of  Dr. 
Taylor's  advancing  the  same  sentiment  at  different  times; 
and  he  believed  he  was  in  the  habit  of  doing  it  where  he 
preached  a  course  of  revival  sermons. 


CONTRAST — THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.        215 

direction,  "  Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,'' 
is  exchanged  for  a  phraseology  which  is  cal- 
culated to  convey  the  impression  that  conver- 
sion consists  in  the  mere  choice  of  God  as  a 
moral  Governor.  This  indeed  is  Mr.  Fin- 
ney's" account  of  it.  "  It  [a  change  of  heart] 
is  a  change  in  the  choice  of  a  Siipreme  Ruler. ^^ 
....  "The  world  is  divided  into  two  great 
political  parties;  the  difference  between  them 
is,  that  one  party  choose  Satan  as  the  god  of 
this  world;"  ....  "the  other  party  choose 
Jehovah  for  their  Governor."  Jesus  Christ, 
as  a  distinct  person  in  the  Godhead,  and  faith 
in  him  as  our  Redeemer,  appear  to  have  lit- 
tle to  do  in  the  process.* 

9.  The  Old  Theology  honours  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  by  drawing  its  doctrines  and 
proofs  from  this  source  alone,  without  calling 
in  the  aid  of  philosophy.  The  New,  resorts  to 
the  latter,  in  order  to  obtain  its  first  principles; 
and  then  interprets  the  former  so  as  to  make 
them  accord  with  these  philosophical  opin- 
ions.    This  remark,  we  are  aware,  may  be 

*  In  the  summer  of  1834, 1  heard  a  sermon  from  Pro- 
fessor   ,  of  New  Haven.     I  do  not  recollect  that 

there  was  a  sentiment  in  it  to  which  I  took  exceptions; 
and  yet  there  was  such  an  absence  of  what  a  Christian  de- 
sires and  expects  to  find,  in  a  sermon  which  professed  to 
teach  us  how  we  may  approach  God  with  acceptance,  as 
to  afford  too  much  reason  for  the  observation  of  a  pious 
and  intelligent  lady  soon  after,  viz :  "that  he  kept  Christ 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  so  much  out  of  view,  she  could  not 
help  thinking  that  he  was  a  deist."  This  lady  had  not 
yet  heard  the  name  or  residence  of  the  preacher;  and  of 
course  could  not  have  been  influenced  by  any  considera- 
tions of  this  kind. 


216  CONTRAST — PHILOSOPHY. 

called  in  question.  The  leaders  in  the  New 
School  party  have  had  much  to  say  concern- 
ing the  "/«c^5"  of  Scripture, and  have  charged 
their  brethren  of  the  Old  School  with  resort- 
ing to  philosophy.  But  a  little  investigation 
of  this  subject,  will  show  the  statement  first 
made  to  be  strictly  true.  In  Mr.  Finney's 
two  sermons  on  the  duty  of  sinners  to  change 
their  own  hearts,  he  uses  the  words  philoso- 
phy, philosophical,  unphilosophical,  &c.,  at 
least  fourteen  times.  He  tells  us  about  <'  the 
philosojjhy  of  conversion,''  "the  philosophy 
of  self-examination,"  and  "  the  philosophy  of 
special  efforts  to  promote  revivals  of  religion." 
Every  step  in  the  change  is  brought  to  the 
test  oi philosophy :  and  the  failure  of  the  sin- 
ner to  submit  to  God  is  ascribed  in  one  in- 
stance to  his  not  understanding  the  philoso- 
phy of  the  process.  "  He,  therefore,  (says 
he)  who  does  not  understand  ihQ  philosophy 
of  this;  who  does  not  understand  the  use  and 
power  of  attention,  the  use  and  power  of 
conscience,  and  upon  what  to  fix  his  mind, 
to  lead  him  to  a  right  decision,  will  naturally 
complain  that  he  does  not  know  how  to  sub- 
mit." The  Scriptures  are  also  brought  for- 
ward and  compared  by  this  rule.  "  When  he 
[Joshua]  assembled  the  people  of  Israel  and 
laid  their  duty  before  them,  and  said,  'choose 
you  this  day  whom  ye  will  serve;'  he  did  not 
unphilosophically  remind  them  at  the  same 
time  of  their  dependence  upon  the  Spirit  of 
God."  Thus  Ave  h3.Ye  philosophical  preach- 
ing, philosophical  protracted  meetings,  phi- 


CONTRAST OBSERVATIONS.  217 

losophical  self-examination,  philosophical 
submission,  and  philosophical  conversion. 
May  not  the  result  of  the  whole  be  a  merely 
philosophical  christian?  Other  proofs  which 
might  be  adduced,  from  different  writers,  we 
must  leave  to  those  who  desire  to  examine 
this  subject. 

It  may  possibly  be  said  that  we  have  given 
more  prominence  to  Mr.  Finney  than  was 
proper ;  since  he  goes  further  than  most  of 
his  brethren,  and  is  not,  therefore,  a  fair  speci- 
men of  their  views.  We  admit  he  has  ex- 
pressed himself  move /reel?/  than  perhaps  a7i^ 
one  else;  but  if  we  compare  the  quotations 
made  from  various  authors,  we  shall  perceive 
they  all  belong  to  the  same  family.  It  has 
been  our  aim  both  in  our  statements  and 
quotations,  to  exhibit  the  doctrines  of  the 
New  Theology,  just  as  they  are,  without  the 
least  exaggeration.  For  this  purpose  our 
extracts  from  New  School  authors  have  been 
numerous,  and  sufficiently  extended  as  to 
length,  to  give  a  correct  view  of  their  senti- 
ments. But  if  it  can  be  made  to  appear  that 
we  have  misrepresented  their  views  in  a 
single  important  point,  we  shall  cheerfully 
rectify  the  mistake. 


19 


218 


PERFECTIONISM  OF  MR.  FINNEY. 

There  is  one  extreme  into  which  Mr.  Finney 
has  fallen,  that  we  by  no  means  charge  upon 
the  New  School,  as  a  body — and  we  have 
therefore  as  yet  entirely  omitted  it.  We 
mean  his  perfectionism.  In  this  we  presume 
he  has  few  followers.  We  will  however  be- 
stow upon  it  a  little  attention,  that  it  may 
serve  as  a  beacon  to  admonish  those  who 
have  embarked  on  the  voyage  of  rehgious 
discovery. 

In  his  Lectures  to  professing  Christians, 
he  has  two  on  Christian  Perfection ;  and  he 
adverts  to  the  subject  in  several  others.  He 
defines  perfection  in  the  following  words : 
<'  It  is  to  love  the  Lord  our  God  with  all  our 
heart  and  soul  and  mind  and  strength,  and 
to  love  our  neighbour  as  om'selves.'^  This 
he  maintains  is  attainable  in  the  present  life. 
"  1.  God  wills  it.  2.  All  the  promises  and 
prophecies  of  God  that  respect  the  sanctifica- 
tion  of  believers  in  this  world,  are  to  be  un- 
derstood of  course  of  their  perfect  sanctifica- 
tion.  3.  Perfect  sanctification  is  the  great 
blessing  promised  throughout  the  Bible.  4. 
The  perfect  sanctification  of  believers  is  the 
very  object  for  which  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
promised.  5.  If  it  is  not  a  practicable  duty  to 
be  perfectly  holy  in  this  world,  then  it  will 
follow  that  the  devil  has  so  completely  ac- 
complished his  design  in  corrupting  mankind, 


PERFECTION  IN  KNOWLEDGE.  219 

that  Jesus  Christ  is  at  a  fault,  and  has  no 
way  to  sanctify  his  people  but  to  take  them 
out  of  the  world.  6.  If  perfect  sanctificatioii 
is  not  attainable  in  this  world,  it  must  be, 
either  from  a  want  of  motives  in  the  gospel, 
or  a  want  of  sufficient  power  in  the  Spirit  of 
God.'^ 

In  another  lecture  he  appears  to  teach  per- 
fection in  knowledge  as  well  as  in  holiness; 
amounting  to  an  illumination  little  short  of 
Divine  inspiration.  "  The  manner  in  which 
the  Spirit  of  God  does  this,"  says  he,  i.  e. 
communicates  ideas  to  the  mind  without  the 
use  of  words,  "  is  what  we  can  never  know 
in  this  world.  But  the  fact  is  undeniable, 
that  he  can  reach  the  mind  without  the  use 
of  words,  and  can  put  our  minds  in  posses- 
sion of  the  ideas  themselves,  of  which  the 
types,  or  figures,  or  words,  of  the  human 
teacher,  are  only  the  signs  or  imperfect  repre- 
sentatives."'. .  .  .  "The  needed  influences  of 
the  Spirit  of  God  may  he  possessed  by  all 
men  freely  under  the  gospel."  .  .  .  .  "  They 
[ministers]  should  not  attempt  to  explain 
passages  of  which  they  are  not  confident  they 
have  been  taught  the  m,eaning  by  the  Holy 
Spi^^it.  It  is  presumption.  And  they  need 
not  do  it,  for  they  may  always  have  the 
teachings  of  the  Spirit  by  asking."  .... 
"  This  is  applicable  both  to  preachers  and  to 
teachers  in  Sabbath  Schools  and  Bible  class- 
es." .  .  .  .  "  Will  you  lay  your  hearts  open 
to  God,  and  not  give  him  rest,  till  he  has 
filled  you  ivith  Divine  knowledge  V^ 


220  CHRIST  BECOMES  RESPONSIBLE. 

In  other  lectures  he  goes  further  still,  and 
mahitains.  if  I  understand  his  language,  that 
when  the  Christian  has  thus  given  himself  up 
entireljr  to  Christ,  to  be  taught  and  governed 
by  him,  he  becomes  so  identified  with  Christ, 
that  his  spirit  and  Christ's  Spirit  are,  morally 
considered,  one — Christ  becomes  responsible 
for  his  acts;  and  of  course  he  not  only  ceases 
from  sin,  but  he  cannot  commit  sin.  What- 
ever he  docs,  Christ  is  responsible  for  it.  This 
he  calls  entering  into  rest.  "When  one 
ceases  from  his  own  works,  he  so  perfectly 
gives  up  his  own  interest  and  his  own  will, 
and  places  himself  so  perfectly  under  the 
dominion  and  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
that  whatever  he  does  is  done  by  the  impulse 
of  the  Spirit  of  God."  .  .  .  .  "  They  are  in 
one  sense  our  works,  because  we  do  them 
by  our  voluntary  agency.  Yet  in  another 
sense  they  are  his  works,  because  he  is  the 
moving  cause  of  all."  ....  "He  [Christ] 
is  just  as  absolutely  your  sanctification,  as 
your  justification.  If  you  depend  upon  him 
for  sanctification,  he  will  no  more  let  you  sin 
than  he  will  let  you  go  to  hell."  ....  "The 
reputation  of  the  wife  is  Avholly  united  to 
that  of  her  husband,  so  that  his  reputation  is 
hers,  and  her  reputation  is  his.  What  affects 
her  character  affects  his;  and  what  affects  his 
character  affects  hers.  Their  reputation  is 
one,  their  interests  are  one.  So  with  the 
church,  whatever  concerns  the  church  is  just 
as  much  the  interest  of  Christ,  as  if  it  was 


ANTINOMIANISM — MR.  FINNEY.  221 

personally  his  own  matter."  .  ..."  If  any 
actions  or  civil  liability  come  against  the  wife, 
the  husband  is  responsible.  If  the  wife  has 
committed  a  trespass,  the  husband  is  an- 
swerable. It  is  his  business  to  guide  and 
govern  her,  and  her  business  to  obey,  and  if 
he  does  not  restrain  her  from  breaking  the 
laws,  he  is  responsible."  ....  "In  like 
manner,  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord  over  his  church, 
and  if  he  does  not  actually  restrain  his  church 
fiom  sin,  he  has  it  to  answer  for."  .... 
"  It  is  his  business  to  take  care  of  the  church, 
and  control  her,  and  keep  her  from  sin;  and 
for  every  sin  of  every  member,  Jesus  Christ 
is  responsible,  and  must  answer."  .... 
"0!  if  believers  would  only  throw  them- 
selves wholly  on  Christ,  and  make  him  re- 
sponsible, by  placing  themselves  entirely  at 
his  control,  they  would  know  his  power  to 
save,  and  would  live  without  sin." 

We  have  given  these  extracts  at  some 
length,  that  those  who  have  not  access  to  his 
Lectures,  may  obtain  a  full  view  of  his  senti- 
ments. It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  remark, 
that  the  sentences  last  quoted  are  Antinomi- 
an.  The  history  of  Antinomianism  does  not 
furnish  many  expressions,  more  licentious  in 
their  tendency  than  these.  This  heresy  is 
more  frequently  the  result  of  an  abuse  of  the 
doctrines  of  grace;  but  in  the  present  instance, 
it  appears  to  have  originated  in  an  opposite 
cause,  viz :  in  those  views  of  human  ability, 
which  render  grace  in  a  measure  superfiu- 


222  MR.  Finney's  perfectionism. 

ous.*  "  There  is,"  says  he,  "  no  more  moral 
inability  to  be  perfectly  holy,  than  there  is  to 
be  holy  at  all."  On  the  same  principle, 
therefore,  that  he  could  preach  to  the  sinner 
the  practicability  of  changing  his  own  heart, 
he  might  argue  that  the  Christian  can  arrive 
at  perfect  holiness  in  this  life.  He  actually 
adopts  the  same  mode  of  reasoning  in  both 
cases.  It  is  therefore  very  natural  to  con- 
clude, that  the  frequent  discussion  of  the  sub- 
ject of  ability  in  reference  to  the  sinner,  had 
much  to  do  in  forming  his  opinions  with  re- 
gard to  Christian  perfection.  Having  arrived 
at  this  point,  he  apphed  his  ideas  of  perfec- 
tion, not  only  to  our  sanctification,  but  to  all 
our  relations  to  God.  In  a  lecture  from  the 
text,  "  Who  of  God  is  made  unto  us  wisdom, 
and  righteousness,  and  sanctification,  and  re- 
demption;" he  considers  each  of  the  terms  as 
conveying  an  idea  equally  expressive.  Since 
then,  according  to  the  views  which  he  had 


*  It  is  supposed  by  some  that  there  is  no  logical  con- 
nexion between  Mr.  Finney's  former  and  present  views — 
but  that  he  has  got  upon  a  new  track.  Formerly,  as  one 
observes,  "  he  left  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  almost  out  of 
view^ ;  he  hardly  preached  the  gospel  at  all ;  but  now 
Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  every  thing.  He  pushes 
union  with  Christ,  imputation,  covenant  relation,  «St.c.  into 
Antinomianism."  The  only  connexion,  he  says,  between 
the  latter  and  his  Pelagianism,  is  that  "he  is  a  fanatic 
now  as  he  was  before."  But  as  others  think  differently, 
we  shall  state  the  probable  process  by  which  it  is  supposed 
he  was  led  into  these  errors.  Yet  whether  they  are  the 
"  logical  sequence"  of  his  former  views  or  not,  they  fur- 
nish an  instructive  lesson  to  those  who  are  disposed  to 
countenance  error. 


MR.  Finney's  peefectionism.  223 

previously  adopted,  sanctification  was  to  be 
taken  as  implying  perfect  holiness,  the  per- 
fectibility of  wisdom  would  seem  to  follow 
as  a  consequence.  Hence  he  says  in  regard 
to  this,  "  As  he  [Christ]  is  the  infinite  source 
of  Avisdom,  how  can  it  be  said  that  he  is 
made  unto  lis  wisdom,  unless  we  are  par- 
takers of  his  wisdom,  and  have  it  guarantied 
to  us;  so  that,  at  any  time,  if  we  trust  in  him, 
we  may  have  it  as  certainly,  and  in  any  dcr 
gree  we  need,  to  guide  us  as  infallibly,  as  if 
we  had  it  originally  ourselves?"  Thus  we 
are  brought  into  the  field  of  fanaticism. 

The  only  condition  required  in  order  to 
obtain  either  wisdom  or  sanctification,  is  faith. 
"The  act  of  the  mind,  says  he,  that  thus 
throws  the  soul  into  the  hand  of  Christ  for 
sanctification,  is  faith.  Nothing  is  wanting, 
but  for  the  mind  to  break  off  from  any  confi- 
dence in  itself,  and  to  give  itself  up  to  him,  to 
be  led  and  controlled  by  him,  absolutely." 
Then  Christ  assumes  the  responsibility;  he 
undertakes  to  do  all  for  him  thcit  he  needs; 
he  becomes  accountable  for  his  conduct.  Says 
he,  "  Until  an  individual  receives  Christ,  he 
does  not  cease  from  his  own  works.  The 
moment  he  does  that,  by  this  very  act  he 
throws  the  entire  responsibility  upon  Christ. 
The  moment  the  mind  does  fairly  yield  itself 
up  to  Christ,  the  responsibility  comes  upon 
him,  just  as  the  person  who  undertakes  to 
conduct  the  blind  man  is  responsilole  for  his 
safe  conduct.  The  believer  by  the  act  of 
faith  pledges  Christ  for  his  obedience  and 


\ 
224      PERFECTIONISM — THEOLOGICAL  REVIEW. 

sanctification.  By  giving  himself  up  to  Christ, 
all  the  veracity  of  the  Godhead  is  put  at  stake, 
that  he  shall  be  led  aright,  or  made  holy." 
Here  we  have  the  final  result  of  the  whole 
process.  By  the  proper  exercise  of  our  free 
will,  we  can  first  change  our  own  hearts,  or 
in  other  words,  put  forth  the  "act"  of  saving 
faith  upon  Jesus  Christ.  By  the  proper  ex- 
ercise of  the  same  free  will,  we  can  put  forth 
a  stronger  "  act"  of  faith,  and  make  him  our 
wisdom  and  sanctification: — our  wisdom,  in 
such  a  sense,  that  he  will  "guide  us  infalh- 
bly,  as  if  we  had  it  originally  ourselves:" — 
and  our  sanctification,  so  entire  and  absolute, 
that  Christ  becomes  responsible  for  our  con- 
duct, and  "  if  he  does  not  restrain  us  from  sin, 
he  has  it  to  answer  for." 

In  the  March  number  of  the  Literary  and 
Theological  Review  for  the  year  1S38,  there 
is  an  able  article  on  this  subject;  from  which 
we  will  make  the  following  extract.  "  In 
the  works  before  us  [referring  to  Mr.  Finney's 
Sermons  and  Lectures,]  we  have  an  authen- 
tic genealogy  of  a  family  of  errors.  We 
are  not  obliged,  as  in  other  instances,  to  trace 
them  through  successive  generations  of  men. 
They  are  all  found  in  the  same  mind,  and 
Pelagianism,  as  contained  in  the  preceding 
extracts,  is  the  venerable  ancestor  of  them  all. 
From  his  infancy  it  was  remarked  that  he 
was  an  uncommon  child.  Unlike  other  chil- 
dren, he  was  by  nature  neither  "  sinful  nor 
holy.^^  Unhappily,  however,  very  soon  after 
his  birth,  he  "/e//  iiito  a  state  of  supreme 


EXTRACT  FROM  THE  THEOLOGICAL  REVIEW.  225 

selfishness,^^  from  which  even  the  "  pliysical 
power  of  God"  could  not  extricate  him.  But 
he  had  rare  abilities,  and  a  "giant  strength" 
of  will,  which  he  could  hardly  refrain  from 
calling  "  the  strength  of  Omnipotence.^^  And 
therefore,  he  always  believed  himself  to  be 
one  of  those  who  could  be  recovered  "  with 
the  wisest  amount  of  moral  influence.^''  He 
had  elevated  notions  of  human  virtue,  and 
would  suffer  no  change  to  be  made  in  his 
condition,  which  was  not  produced  by  "  his 
oion  act.''^  He  was  willing,  indeed,  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  should  operate  on  him,  provided 
it  were  only  as  an  earthly  advocate  acts  on  a 
jury.  He  was  willing  that  "  motives  should 
be  gathered  from  all  worlds  and  poured  in 
a  focal  blaze  on  his  mindP  He  was  anxious 
to  receive  good  counsel  from  his  friends,  and 
reverently  to  hear  divine  truth;  but  the 
change  from  ^^  supreme  selfishness^^  he  de- 
clared to  be  his  own  ^'appropriate  work;'*'' 
and  he  was  at  length  accustomed  to  say,  that 
he  had  effected  it  by  "  his  own  act.^^  It  was 
natural  to  suppose,  that  the  theological  chil- 
dren of  such  a  system  would  have  some  re- 
markable characteristics.  In  Pelagius  and 
Coelestius  it  had  produced  Perfectionism,  and 
there  was  reason  to  fear  that  in  the  mind  of 
Mr.  Finney,  it  would  generate  the  same 
progeny.  In  various  parts  of  the  land  the 
system  had  been  earnestly  inculcated.  Its 
most  sagacious  disciples  were  beginning  to 
declare  themselves  to  "  be  j)erfectP  to  have 
'^  rolled  the  responsibility   of  their  future 


226       LITERARY  AND  THEOLOGICAL  REVIEW. 

and  eternal  obedience  on  an  everlasting 
armf^  to  receive  '''•  irtimediate  communica- 
tions from  Godf^  to  be  '^ personally  united 
to  Him,^^  and  have  "  entered  into  rest.^^ 
These  heresies  were  early  demonstrated  to 
have  had  their  origin  in  the  system  itself. 
As  Mr.  Finney  had  been  the  Apostle  of  this 
system  in  these  latter  days,  it  was  intimated 
that  his  doctrines,  as  inculcated  in  his  preach- 
ing and  by  the  press,  had  tended  to  produce 
these  impieties.  This  view  of  the  subject 
was  indignantly  repelled  even  by  the  candid 
ones  among  his  followers.  The  thought  that 
his  doctrines  had  produced  such  results,  they 
could  not  for  a  moment  entertain.  Although 
others  had  no  doubt  that  Mr.  Finney  was 
the  true  parent  of  Perfectionism,  they  had 
more  opinion  of  his  caution,  than  to  suppose 
he  could  soon  be  induced  openly  to  own 
and  adopt  it.  But,  to  the  amazement  of  all, 
he  now  comes  forth,  bringing  with  him  for 
induction  into  the  church,  the  doctrine  of  the 
perfection  of  the  saints  in  this  life,  of  the 
responsibility  of  Christ  for  his  people,  of 
immediate  communications  to  them  from 
God,  and  of  their  entrance  into  rest  even  in 
this  ivorld.  These  last  views  were  not  deve- 
loped till  he  had  abandoned  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  Ever  since  their  publication,  it  is 
almost  inconceivable  by  those  who  have  heard 
of  him  chiefly  as  a  promoter  of  revivals,  and 
have  been  unwilling  to  listen  to  the  notes  of 
warning,  so  long  honestly  and  responsively 
sounded  by  individuals — it  is  almost  incon- 


CONCLUSION.  227 

ceivable,  that  he  has  inculcated  these  fanati- 
cal doctrines.  Even  the  Christian  Spectator, 
though  it  fears  "  he  may  be  liable  to  miscon- 
struction and  injure  the  consciences  of  many- 
weak  and  pious  persons/'  declares,  "  we  do 
not  believe  he  means  any  thing  more  than 
we  should  fully  admit — the  possibihty  and 
duty  of  obedience  to  God  in  all  things  com- 
manded.'' But  this  view  of  his  meaning  it 
is  impossible  to  sustain  either  by  individual 
sentences,  or  the  evident  design  of  his  Lec- 
tures on  these  subjects.  His  errors  are  writ- 
ten so  legibly,  that  he  who  runs  may  read. 
Mr.  Finney  now  stands  before  the  communi- 
ty as  a  practical  illustration  of  the  effects  of 
rejecting  the  doctrine,  that  human  nature  is 
depraved:  and  of  believing,  that  in  regenera- 
tion and  sanctification,  the  word  of  the  Spirit 
is  confined  chiefly  to  the  understanding. 


CONCLUSION. 

If  the  statements  contained  in  this  volume 
are  to  be  relied  upon;  in  other  words,  if  New 
School  writers  maintain  those  sentiments 
which  are  clearly  conveyed  by  their  lan- 
guage, they  have  widely  departed  from  "the 
faith  once  dehvered  to  the  saints."  But 
should  any  be  still  disposed  to  repeat  the  re- 
mark, "  There  is  no  difference;  the  contest  is 


228        CASE  OF  BALCH  AND  DAVIS. 

/  a  mere  logomachy,"  &c.;  we  will  refer  them, 
first,  to  the  action  of  the  General  Assembly 
in  former  years,  condemning  as  heretical 
those  very  doctrines  substantially,  which  now 
make  a  part  of  the  New  Theology. 

In  1798,  the  case  of  Rev.  H.  Balch  came 
before  the  Assembly  by  way  of  reference  from 
the  Synod  of  the  Carol inas.  The  following 
is  a  part  of  the  minutes  of  the  Assembly  on 
this  subject.  "  With  regard  to  his  doctrine 
of  original  sin,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  he  is 
erroneous  in  representing  personal  corrup- 
tion as  not  derived  from  Adam;  making 
Adam's  sin  to  be  imputed  to  his  posterity  in 
consequence  of  a  corrupt  nature  already  pos- 
sessed, and  derived  from,  we  know  not  what; 
thus  in  effect  setting  aside  the  idea  of  Adam's 
being  the  federal  head,  or  representative  of 
his  descendants,  and  the  whole  doctrine  of 
the  covenant  of  works." 

"  It  is  also  manifest  that  Mr.  B.  is  greatly 
erroneous  in  asserting  that  the  formal  cause 
of  a  believer's  justification  is  the  imputation 
of  the  fruits  and  effects  of  Christ's  righteous- 
ness, and  not  that  righteousness  itself;  be- 
cause righteousness,  and  that  alone,  is  the 
formal  demand  of  the  law,  and  consequently 
the  sinner's  violation  of  the  Divine  law,  can 
be  pardoned  only  by  virtue  of  the  Redeem- 
er's perfect  righteousness  being  imputed  to 
him  and  reckoned  as  his.  It  is  also  not  true 
that  the  benefits  of  Christ's  righteousness  are, 
with  strict  propriety,  said  to  be  imputed  at 
all,  as  these  benefits  ^oi^;  to,  dciidi  diXe  possess- 


TESTIMONY  OF  UNITARIANS.  229 

edhy^  the  believer,  as  a  consequence  of  his 
justification  and  having  an  interest  in  the 
infinite  merits  of  the  Saviour." 

In  1810,  a  work  of  tlie  Rev.  Wilham  C. 
Davis,  entitled  the  "  Gospel  Plan,"  came  be- 
fore the  Assemblyj  by  an  overture  from  the 
Synod  of  the  Carohnas.  Among  the  doc- 
trines contained  in  the  book  of  an  exception- 
able character,  and  which  the  Assembly  con- 
demned, are  the  following:  "  That  the  active 
obedience  of  Christ  constitutes  no  part  of  that 
righteousness  by  which  a  sinner  is  justified;" 
that  '•  God  could  not  make  Adam,  or  any 
other  creature,  either  holy  or  unholy;"  and 
that,  "  if  God  has  to  plant  all  the  principal 
parts  of  salvation  in  a  sinner's  heart,  to  en- 
able him  to  believe,  the  gospel  plan  is  quite 
out  of  his  reach,  and  consequently  does  not 
suit  his  case ;  and  it  must  be  impossible  for 
God  to  condemn  a  man  for  unbelief;  for  no 
just  law  condemns  or  criminates  any  person 
for  not  doing  what  he  cannot  do."  Concern- 
ing these  doctrines  the  Assembly  resolved 
that  they  are  "contrary  to  the  Confession  of 
Faith  of  our  Church." — Assembly's  Digest, 
pp.  130,  145,  146,  147. 

If  the  persons  before  alluded  to,  are  not 
yet  satisfied  that  there  is  a  palpable  and  im- 
portant difference  between  the  Old  and  New 
Theology,  we  will  refer  them,  secondly,  to 
the  opinion  of  Unitarians^  as  expressed  in 
the  review  of  Mr.  Barnes'  Notes  on  the  Ro- 
mans, in  the  Christian  Examiner;  one  or  two 
extracts  from  which  have  already  been  made. 


230  OBSERVATIONS  AND  REMARKS. 

"  In  conclusion  we  would  say,  (observes  the 
reviewer,)  that  while  our  orthodox  brethren 
publish  and  circulate  and  receive  with  favour 
such  books  as  these  "  Notes/^  we  most  cordi- 
ally extend  to  thern  the  right  hand  of  fellow- 
ship, even  though  they  refuse  to  return  it. 
We  regard  them  as  fellow  labourers  with  us, 
for  the  overthrow  of  time-hallowed  absurdi- 
ties; for  the  cleansing  of  the  Christian  creed 
from  '  whatever  defileth  and  maketh  a  lie.' 
Calvinism  is  now  a  house  divided  against 
itself.  It  embraces  within  its  walls  two,  not 
only  distinct,  but  opposite  sects;*  the  one 
that  of  the  friends,  the  other  that  of  the  ene- 
mies of  free  inquiry; — the  one  that  of  the 
votaries  of  reason,  the  other  that  of  the  blind- 
fold recipients  of  a  traditional  faith.  The 
house  is  tottering,  is  on  the  point  of  falling; 
and  when  it  falls,  we  confidently  expect  to 
receive  into  the  citadel  of  liberal  Christianity, 
and  shall  greet  with  a  most  hearty  welcome, 
those,  beneath  whose  well  aimed  blows,  the 
walls  of  the  old  mansion  are  shaken  and  its 
foundation  crumbling." 

That  ministers  of  I  he  gosjj  el  should  enter- 
tain the  opinion,  (as  some  do,)  that  there  is 
no  material  difference  between  the  two  sys- 
tems, is  truly  astonishing.  It  results  in  part, 
we  believe,  from  inattention.  But  men  who 
have  devoted  their  lives  to  the  "cure  of 
souls,''  who  have  been  placed  by  the  Head  of 
the  Church,  as  "  watchmen  to  the  house  of 
Israel/'  are  bound,  it  appears  to  me,  to  make 

*  This  was  written  in  1836. 


ARIANIS3I,  now  TREATED.  231 

themselves  thoroughly  acquainted  with  these 
things.  Civilians  and  men  of  business  have 
some  apology  for  their  want  of  information 
— it  not  being  in  general  compatible  with 
their  pursuits,  to  attend  very  minutely  to 
theological  discussions.  Hence  it  is  not  so 
wonderful  that  a  considerable  number  of  this 
class,  who  are  sound  in  the  faith,  should  be 
disposed,  in  the  exercise  of  that  charity  which 
"  hopeth  all  things,'^  to  indulge  the  belief 
that  the  grounds  of  controversy  are  less  im- 
portant than  some  have  supposed.  But  if 
they  will  take  sufficient  time  to  examine  the 
subject,  until  they  become  fully  acquainted 
with  the  questions  in  debate,  we  believe  their 
minds  will  undergo  a  similar  change  to  that 
of  the  Emperor  Constantine,  with  regard  to 
the  Arian  heresy. 

After  the  discussion  had  commenced  be- 
tween Arius  and  Alexander  bishop  of  Alex- 
andria in  Egypt,  but  prior  to  the  council  of 
Nice,  at  which  the  Emperor  presided  and 
gave  his  consent  to  the  condemnation  of  the 
Arian  doctrine,  he  addressed  a  letter  to  Alex- 
ander and  Arius,  with  a  view  to  bring  about 
a  reconciliation ;  in  which  he  says,  *'  The 
honour  and  character  of  the  assembly  of 
Christians  may  be  preserved  entire,  and  the 
same  commnnion  retained  among  you  all,  not- 
withstanding you  may  greatly  differ  among 
yourselves  in  ^natters  of  very  little  import- 
ance,^^ (^'C "  Your  subtle  disputes  and 

inquiries  respecting  these  trifling  matters, 
if  you  cannot  agree  in  sentiment,  should  re- 


232  NICENE  COUNCIL CONSTANTINE. 

main  in  yoar  own  thoughts,  and  be  laid  up  in 
the  secret  depths  of  the  mind."  But  before 
the  close  of  the  Nicene  council,  the  points  of 
difference  did  not  appear  to  him  "  trifling 
matters."  The  Emperor  wrote  two  letters 
at  the  close  of  the  council,  in  one  of  which, 
directed  to  the  churches  in  general,*  he  "  in- 
forms them  that  the  faith  has  been  examined, 
and  placed  in  so  clear  a  light  that  no  difficul- 
ty remains."  At  the  same  time  he  published 
"an  edict  directed  to  the  bishops  and  people, 
condemning  Arius  and  his  writings.  He 
says  that  Porphyry,  having  composed  im- 
pious books  against  Christianity,  rendered 
himself  infamous  in  the  eyes  of  posterity, 
and  that  his  writings  were  destroyed.  It  has 
in  like  manner,  he  continues,  been  decreed, 
that  Arius  and  his  followers  be  called  Por- 
phyrians,  so  that  they  may  bear  the  name  of 
him  whom  they  have  imitated;  and  that  if 
any  book  written  by  Arius  shall  be  found,  it 
shall  be  committed  to  the  flames,  that  no 
monument  of  his  corrupt  doctrine  may  de- 
scend to  future  ages." — Historical  View  of 
the  Council  of  Nice,  pp.  27,  40,  41. 

It  must  not  be  understood  from  this  illus- 
tration that  we  mean  to  insinuate  that  our 
New  School  brethren  are  Arians.  All  we 
intend  is,  that  their  errors  are  real  and  not 
imaginary;  that  they  are  not  small,  but  im- 
portant; and  that  the  counter  opinion  of  those 
men  is  entitled  to  little  influence,  however  in- 
telligent and  pious  and  orthodox  they  may 

*  The  other  was  addressed  to  the  church  at  Alexandria. 


OBSERVATIONS  AND  REMARKS.  233 

be,  who  have  not  paid  sufficient  attention  to 
the  subject,  even  to  state  with  precision,  the 
points  in  controversy.  Let  them  seriously 
and  carefully  examine  the  New  School  doc- 
trines, and  we  cannot  doubt,  they  Avill  be 
obliged  to  acknowledge,  that  if  our  Con- 
fession of  Faith  is  agreeable  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, those  doctrines  must  belong  to  "an- 
other gospel." 

To  me  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  Presby- 
terian Church  were  alarmed.  The  wonder 
is,  that  the  alarm  was  not  sooner  and  uni- 
versally felt.  If  efficient  measures  had  been 
adopted  ten  years  ago,  when  those  errors 
had  just  made  their  appearance,  they  might 
have  been  rectified  without  a  division.  But 
they  were  suffered  to  remain  and  spread,  un- 
til they  became  so  prevalent,  that  discipline 
was  impracticable;  and  either  some  extraor- 
dinary measures  must  be  resorted  to,  or  the 
Church  be  ruined.  To  use  the  language  of 
an  excellent  and  distinguished  brother  in  the 
ministry,  "  We  were  reduced  to  this  simple 
question.  Is  the  Presbyterian  Church  worth 
an  effort  to  save?"  Under  these  circum- 
stances, the  General  Assembly  of  1837  were 
called  to  act:  and  though,  from  the  mode  of 
procedure  which  they  were  obliged  to  adopt, 
they  separated  from  them,  for  the  time  being, 
some  whom  they  would  have  gladly  retain- 
ed; subsequent  events  have  already  proved, 
that  those  measures  will  result  in  great  good. 
Those  discordant  materials  which  have  for 
years  past  rendered  the  floor  of  the  General 
20 


234  OBSERVATIONS  AND  RE3IARKS. 

Assembly  an  arena  of  strife,  are  now  remov- 
ed. The  Church  purified  from  error  and 
harmonious  in  action,  may  now  engage  with 
efficiency  and  success,  in  her  appropriate 
work  of  carrying  the  symbols  of  her  faith  to 
a  perishing  world.  We  have  now  no  pre- 
text for  inaction.  While  we  rejoice  in  the 
zeal  and  success  of  every  branch  of  Christ's 
Church,  who  are  engaged  in  the  work  of 
preaching  the  gospel,  let  us  not  be  behind 
them,  either  in  the  expansiveness  or  efficiency 
of  our  benevolence. 


THE    END. 


A  REVIEW 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT. 


FIRST   PUBLISHED   IN   THE 


BIBLICAL  REPERTORY,  JANUARY  1845. 


REVIEW 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT. 


The  doctrine  of  which  this  Httle  book  treats, 
has  always  been  regarded  as  the  cardinal  doc- 
trine of  the  gospel.  It  was  the  burden  of 
apostolical  preaching,  the  rock  of  offence  to 
Jews  and  Greeks,  the  corner  stone  of  that 
temple  in  which  God  dwells  by  his  Spirit. 
The  cross  is  the  symbol  of  Christianity;  that 
in  which  every  believer  glories,  as  the  only 
ground  of  his  confidence  toward  God.  The 
rejection  of  this  doctrine,  therefore,  has  always 
been  regarded,  and  is  in  fact,  a  rejection  of 
the  gospel.  It  is  the  repudiation  of  the  way 
of  salvation  revealed  by  God,  and  the  adop- 
tion of  some  method  not  only  different  but 
irreconcilable.  Whatever,  therefore,  affects 
the  integrity  of  this  doctrine,  affects  the  whole 
system  of  religion.  It  lies  in  such  immediate 
contact  with  the  source  of  all  spiritual  life, 

*  Christ,  The  only  Sacrifice:  or  the  Atonement  in  its  Re- 
lations to  God  and  Man.  By  Nathan  S.  S,  Beman,  D.  D., 
Pastor  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church,  Troy,  New 
York.  With  an  Introductory  chapter  by  Samuel  Han- 
son Cox,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  Brook- 
lyn,  New  York.  Second  edition,  re-written,  enlarged,  and 
improved.    New  York:  Mark  H.  Newman.  1844,  pp.  171. 


4  EEVIEW    OF 

that  the  very  nature  of  religion  depends  on 
the  manner  in  which  it  is  apprehended. 
Though  all  moral  and  religious  truths  are  in 
their  nature  sources  of  power,  and  never  fail 
to  influence  more  or  less  the  character  of  those 
"who  embrace  them,  yet  some  truths  are  more 
powerful,  and  hence  more  important  than 
others.  We  may  speculate  with  comparative 
impunity  on  the  nature  of  angels,  on  the  ori- 
gin of  evil,  on  the  purposes  of  God,  on  his 
relation  to  the  world,  and  even  on  the  grounds 
and  nature  of  human  responsibility;  but  when 
we  come  to  the  question,  how  am  I  to  gain 
access  to  God  ?  how  can  I  secure  the  pardon 
of  mj?"  sins  and  acceptance  with  Him  ?  what  is 
the  true  ground  of  hope  and  what  must  I  do  to 
place  myself  on  that  ground  so  as  to  secure 
the  assurance  of  God's  love,  peace  of  con- 
science, and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost?  then  the 
less  we  speculate  the  better.  The  nearer  we 
keep  to  the  simple,  authoritative  statements 
of  God's  word,  the  firmer  will  be  our  faith, 
the  more  full  and  free  our  access  to  God,  and 
the  more  harmonious  and  healthful  our  whole 
religious  experience.  Such  is  the  informing 
influence  of  such  experience,  when  it  is  genu- 
ine, that  is,  when  really  guided  by  the  Spirit 
and  conformed  to  the  revelation  of  God,  that 
it  effects  a  far  nearer  coincidence  of  views  in 
all  the  children  of  God,  than  the  multiplicity 
of  sects,  and  conflicting  systems  of  theology 
would  lead  us  to  imagine.  The  mass  of  true 
Christians,  in  all  denominations,  get  their  re- 
ligion directly  from  the  Bible,  and  are  but 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  5 

little  affected  by  the  peculiarities  of  their 
creeds.  And  even  among  those  who  make 
theology  a  study,  there  is  often  one  form  of 
doctrine  for  speculation,  and  another  simpler 
and  truer,  for  the  closet.  Metaphysical  dis- 
tinctions are  forgot  in  prayer,  or  under  the 
pressure  of  real  conviction  of  sin,  and  need 
of  pardon  and  of  divine  assistance.  Hence 
it  is  that  the  devotional  writings  of  Christians 
agree  far  nearer  than  their  creeds.  It  may 
be  taken  for  granted  that  that  mode  of 
stating  divine  truth,  Avhich  is  most  in  accord- 
ance with  the  devotional  language  of  true 
Christians;  which  best  expresses  those  views 
which  the  soul  takes  when  it  appropriates  the 
doctrines  of  the  gospel  for  its  own  spiritual 
emergencies,  is  the  truest  and  the  best. 

How  then  does  the  believer  regard  the  per- 
son and  work  of  Christ,  in  his  own  exercises 
of  faith,  gratitude,  or  love?  What  is  the  lan- 
guage in  which  those  exercises  are  expressed? 
If  we  look  to  the  devotional  writings  of  the 
church,  in  all  ages  and  countries,  and  of  all 
sects  and  names,  we  shall  get  one  clear,  con- 
sistent answer.  What  David  wrote  three 
thousand  years  ago,  expresses, with  precision, 
the  emotions  of  God's  people  now.  The 
hymns  of  the  early  Christians,  of  the  Luther- 
ans, of  the  Reformed,  of  Moravians,  of  British 
and  American  Christians,  all  express  the  com- 
mon consciousness  of  God's  people ;  they  all 
echo  the  words  and  accents  in  which  the  truth 
came  clothed  from  the  mouth  of  God,  and  in 
which,  in  spite  of  the  obstructions  of  theolo- 


6  REVIEW    OP 

gical  theories,  it  finds  its  way  to  every  be- 
lieving heart.  Now  one  thing  is  very  plain, 
Dr.  Beman's  theory  of  the  atonement  never 
could  be  learnt  from  the  devotional  language 
of  the  church,  ours  can.  Every  thing  we 
beheve  on  the  subject  is  inwrought,  not  only 
in  the  language  of  the  Bible,  but  in  the  lan- 
guage of  God's  people,  whether  they  pray  or 
praise,  whether  they  mourn  or  rejoice.  We 
have  therefore  the  heart  of  the  church  on  our 
side  at  least. 

It  lies  on  the  very  surface  of  the  Scriptures: 
1.  That  all  men  are  sinners.  2.  That  sin  for  its 
own  sake,  and  not  merely  to  prevent  others 
from  sinning,  deserves  punishment.  3.  That 
God  is  just,  that  is,  disposed  from  the  very 
excellence  of  his  nature,  to  treat  his  creatures 
as  they  deserve,  to  manifest  his  favour  to  the 
good,  and  his  disapprobation  towards  the 
wicked.  4.  That  to  propitiate  God,  to  satisfy 
his  righteous  justice,  the  Son  of  God  assumed 
our  nature,  was  made  under  the  law,  fulfilled 
all  righteousness,  bore  our  sins,  the  chastise- 
ment or  punishment  of  which,  was  laid  on 
him.  5.  That  by  his  righteousness,  those 
that  believe,  are  constituted  righteous;  that 
his  merit  is  so  given,  reckoned  or  imputed  to 
them,  that  they  are  regarded  and  treated  as 
righteous  in  the  sight  of  God.  These  truths, 
which  lie  on  the  surface  of  the  Scripture,  are 
wrought  into  the  very  soul  of  the  church,  and 
are  in  fact  its  life.  Yet  every  one  of  them, 
except  the  first.  Dr.  Beman  either  expressly 
or  virtually  denies. 


BEMABf  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  7 

He  denies  that  sin  for  its  own  sake  deserves 
punishment.  He  every  where  represents  the 
prevention  of  crime  as  the  great  end  to  be 
answered  by  punishment  even  in  the  govern- 
ment of  God.  If  that  end  can  be  otherwise 
answered,  then  justice  is  satisfied;  the  neces- 
sity and  propriety  of  punishment  ceases.  This 
is  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  whole  sys- 
tem, and  is  avowed  or  implied  upon  almost 
every  page.  His  argument  in  proof  that  re- 
pentance is  not  a  sufficient  ground  for  pardon, 
is  that  it  has  no  tendency  to  prevent  crime  in 
others.  In  human  governments,  he  says, 
punishment  is  designed  to  prevent  a  repetition 
of  crime  by  the  criminal,  and  to  prevent  its 
commission  by  others.  The  former  of  these 
ends  might  be  answered  by  repentance,  but 
not  the  latter.  So  in  the  case  of  the  divine 
government,  repentance  on  the  part  of  the 
sinner,  might,  "  so  far  as  his  moral  feelings 
are  concerned,"  render  it  consistent  in  God 
to  forgive,  but  then,  "  Where  is  the  honour  of 
the  law  ?  Where  is  the  good  of  the  universe  ?'^ 
p.  57.  The  design  of  ^'  penalty  is  to  operate 
as  a  powerful  motive  to  obedience."  p.  127. 
There  is,  he  says,  the  same  necessity  for 
atonement,  as  for  the  penalty  of  the  moral 
law,  and  that  necessity,  he  uniformly  repre- 
sents, as  a  necessity  "  to  secure  the  order  and 
prosperity  of  the  universe."  p.  128. 

It  is  of  course  admitted  that  the  prevention 
of  crime  is  one  of  the  effects,  and  conse- 
quently one  of  the  ends  of  punishment.    But 


8  EEVIEW    OP     ^ 

to  say  that  it  is  the  end,  that  it  is  so  the 
ground  of  its  infliction,  that  all  necessity  for 
punisliment  ceases  when  that  end  is  answer- 
ed, is  to  deny  the  very  nature  of  sin.  The 
ideas  of  right  and  wrong  are  simple  ideas, 
derived  immediately  from  our  moral  nature. 
And  it  is  included  in  those  ideas  that  what  is 
right  deserves  approbation,  and  what  is  wrong 
deserves  disapprobation,  for  their  own  sake, 
and  entirely  irrespective  of  the  consequences 
which  are  to  flow  from  the  expression  of  this 
moral  judgment  concerning  them.  When  a 
man  sins,  he  feels  that  he  deserves  to  suffer,  or 
as  the  apostle  expresses  it,  that  he  is  "  worthy 
of  death. '^  But  what  is  this  feeling?  Is  it 
that  he  ought  to  be  punished  to  prevent  others 
from  sinning?  So  far  from  this  being  the 
whole  of  the  feeling,  it  is  no  part  of  it.  If 
the  sinner  were  alone  in  the  universe,  if 
there  was  no  possibility  of  others  being  aff"ect- 
ed  by  his  example,  or  by  his  impunity,  the 
sense  of  ill-desert  would  exist  in  all  its  force. 
For  sin  is  that  which  in  itself,  and  for  itself, 
irrespective  of  all  consequences,  deserves  ill. 
This  is  the  very  nature  of  it,  and  to  deny  this 
is  to  deny  that  there  is  really  any  such  thing 
as  sin.  There  may  be  acts  which  tend  to 
promote  happiness,  and  others  which  tend  to 
destroy  it;  but  there  is  no  morality  in  such 
tendency  merely,  any  more  than  there  is 
health  and  sickness.  The  nature  of  moral 
acts  may  be  evinced  by  their  tendency,  but 
that  tendency  does  not  constitute  their  nature. 
To  love  God,  to  reverence  excellence,  to  for- 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  9 

give  injuries,  all  tend  to  promote  happiness, 
but  no  man,  who  has  a  moral  sense  in  exer- 
cise, can  say  that  they  are  right  only  because 
of  such  tendency.  They  are  right,  because 
they  are  right,  in  virtue  of  their  own  inherent 
nature.  And  the  opposite  dispositions*or  acts 
are  in  their  nature  evil,  irrespective  of  their 
tendency  to  produce  misery. 

The  theory  that  the  end  of  punishment, 
even  in  the  divine  government,  is  to  prevent 
crime,  is  only  one  expression  of  the  more 
general  theory,  that  happiness  is  the  end  of 
creation,  and  that  all  holiness  is  resolvable 
into  benevolence.  This  theory  is  a  product 
of  the  mere  understanding,  and  does  violence 
to  the  instinctive  moral  judgment  of  men. 
We  know  that  holiness  is  something  more 
than  a  means ;  that  to  be  happy  is  not  the 
end  and  reason  for  being  holy ;  that  enjoy- 
ment is  not  the  highest  end  of  being.  Our 
moral  nature  cannot  be  thus  obliterated,  and 
right  and  wrong,  made  matters  of  profit  and 
loss.  The  command  not  to  do  evil  that  good 
may  come,  would  on  this  theory,  be  a  con- 
tradiction, since  that  ceases  to  be  evil  which 
produces  good.  All  virtue  is  thus  resolved 
into  expediency,  and  the  doctrine  that  the  end 
sanctifies  the  means,  becomes  the  fundamen- 
tal principle  of  virtue.  It  is  strange  that  even 
when  the  moral  feelings  are  in  abeyance,  and 
men  are  engaged  in  spinning  from  the  intel- 
lect, a  theory  that  will  reduce  to  unity,  the 
conflicting  facts  of  the  moral  world,  they 
could  adopt  a  view  which  reduces  all  intelli- 


10  REVIEW    OP 

gent  beings  to  mere  recipients  of  happiness, 
and  degrades  the  higher  attributes  of  their 
nature  into  mere  instruments  of  enjoyment ; 
a  theory  which  meets  its  refutation  in  every 
moral  emotion,  and  which  has  proved  itself 
false  by  its  practical  effects.  We  may  safely 
appeal  to  the  convictions  of  every  man's 
breast,  against  this  whole  theory,  and  against 
the  doctrine  that  sin  is  punished  and  deserves 
punishment  only  as  a  warning  to  others.  No 
man  when  humbled  under  the  sense  of  his 
guilt  in  the  sight  of  God,  can  resist  the  con- 
viction of  the  inherent  ill-desert  of  sin.  He 
feels  that  it  would  be  right  that  he  should  be 
made  to  suffer,  nay,  that  rectitude,  justice,  or 
moral  excellence  demands  his  suffering;  and 
the  hardest  thing  for  the  sinner  to  believe,  is, 
often,  that  it  can  be  consistent  with  the  moral 
excellence  of  God,  to  grant  him  forgiveness. 
Into  this  feeling  the  idea  of  counteracting  the 
progress  of  sin,  or  promoting  the  good  of  the 
universe,  does  not  in  any  measure  enter. 
The  feeling  would  be  the  same,  though  there 
were  no  universe.  It  is  ill-desert  and  not  the 
general  good,  which  every  man  feels  in  his 
own  case,  is  the  ground  of  his  just  Hability 
to  punishment.  And  without  this  feeling 
there  can  be  no  conviction  of  sin.  We  may 
also  appeal  against  this  metaphysical  theory  to 
the  universal  consciousness  of  men.  Though 
it  is  admitted  that  governmental  reasons  pro- 
perly enter  into  the  considerations  which  de- 
termine the  nature  and  measure  of  punish- 
ment, yet  it  is  the  universal  and  intuitive 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  11 

judgment  of  men,  that  the  criminal  could  not 
be  rightly  punished  merely  for  the  public 
good,  if  he  did  not  deserve  to  be  punished 
irrespective  of  that  good.  His  suffering  bene- 
fits the  public  because  it  is  deserved ;  it  is  not 
deserved  because  it  benefits  the  public.  That 
this  is  the  universal  judgment  of  men  is  proved 
by  every  exhibition  of  their  feelings  on  this 
subject.  When  any  atrocious  crime  is  com- 
mitted, the  public  indignation  is  aroused. 
And  when  the  nature  of  that  indignation  is 
examined,  it  becomes  manifest  that  it  arises 
from  a  sense  of  the  inherent  ill-desert  of  the 
crime ;  that  it  is  a  sense  of  justice,  and  not  a 
regard  to  the  good  of  society  which  produces 
the  demand  for  punishment.  To  allow  such 
a  criminal  to  escape  Avith  impunity,  is  felt  to 
be  an  outrage  against  justice,  and  not  against 
benevolence.  If  the  public  good  was  the 
grand  end  of  punishment,  then  if  the  punish- 
ment of  the  innocent  would  promote  that  ob- 
ject most  effectually,  the  innocent  should  suf- 
fer instead  of  the  guilty;  consequently  if 
murders  would  be  most  restrained  by  the  ex- 
ecution of  the  wives  and  children  of  the  as- 
sassins, it  would  be  right  and  obligatory  to 
execute  them,  and  not  the  perpetrators  of  the 
crime.  If  this  would  shock  every  man,  let 
him  ask  himself,  why?  what  is  the  reason 
that  the  execution  of  an  innocent  woman  for 
the  public  good,  would  be  an  atrocity,  when 
the  execution  of  the  guilty  husband  is  regard- 
ed as  a  duty  ?  It  is  simply  because  the  guilty 
deserve  punishment  irrespective  of  the  good 


12  EEVIEW    OF 

of  society.  And  if  so,  then  the  pubHc  good 
is  not  the  ground  of  punishment  in  the  govern- 
ment of  God,  but  the  inherent  ill-desert  of  sin. 
Men  in  all  ages  have  evinced  this  deep  seated 
sense  of  justice.  Every  sacrifice  ever  offered 
to  God,  to  propitiate  his  favour,  was  an  ex- 
pression of  the  conviction  that  the  sin  for  its 
own  sake  deserved  punishment.  To  tell  a 
man  who  brought  his  victim  to  the  ahar,  that 
the  real  philosophy  of  his  conduct,  was  to 
express  a  desire  for  his  own  reformation,  or 
for  the  good  of  society,  would  be  a  mockery. 
Such  an  idea  never  entered  any  human  heart, 
when  in  the  presence  of  God  and  seeking  his 
forgiveness. 

It  is  not  pretended  that  this  theory  is 
taught  in  the  Bible.  It  purports  to  be  a 
philosophy.  The  Bible  contradicts  it  on 
every  page,  because  every  page  contains 
some  expression  of  genuine  human  feeling, 
of  the  conviction  of  the  real  difference  be- 
tween right  and  wrong,  of  a  true  sense  of 
sin,  or  of  the  great  truth  that  our  responsi- 
bility is  to  God,  and  not  to  the  universe. 
The  doctrine  therefore  that  sin  is  punished 
merely  to  preserve  the  order  and  prosperity 
of  the  universe,  is  an  utterly  false  and  revolt- 
ing theory,  inconsistent  with  the  intuitive 
moral  judgments  of  men,  subversive  of  all 
moral  distinctions,  irreconcilable  with  the 
experience  of  every  man  when  really  con- 
vinced of  sin,  and  contradicted  by  every 
thing  the  Bible  teaches  on  the  subject. 

Dr.  Beman  again  denies,  and  it  is  essential 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  13 

to  his  system  that  he  should  deny,  the  justice 
of  God.  He  admits  that  God  has  a  disposi- 
tion to  promote  the  welfare  of  his  creatures, 
and  so  to  order  his  moral  government  as  to 
make  it  produce  the  greatest  amount  of  hap- 
piness. This,  however,  is  benevolence,  and 
not  justice.  The  two  sentiments  are  per- 
fectly distinct.  This  our  own  consciousness 
teaches.  We  know  that  pity  is  not  rever- 
ence, that  gratitude  is  not  compassion,  and 
we  know  just  as  well  that  justice  is  not  be- 
nevolence. The  two  are  perfectly  harmoni- 
ous, and  are  but  different  exhibitions  of  moral 
excellence.  The  judge  of  all  the  earth  must 
do  right.  It  is  right  to  promote  happiness, 
and  it  is  right  to  punish  sin;  but  to  refer  the 
punishment  of  sin  to  the  desire  to  promote 
happiness,  is  to  attribute  but  one  form  of 
moral  excellence  to  God,  and  to  make  his 
excellence  less  comprehensive  than  our  own. 
Dr.  Beman  speaks  of  commutative,  distribu- 
tive, and  general  justice.  The  former  has 
relation  only  to  the  regulation  of  property, 
and  has  nothing  to  do  with  this  subject. 
Distributive  justice  consists  in  the  distribu- 
tion of  rewards  and  punishments,  according 
to  merit  or  demerit.  General  justice,  he  says, 
embraces  the  general  principles  of  virtue  or 
benevolence  by  which  God  governs  the  uni- 
verse. The  second  kind,  he  correctly  says, 
is  justice  in  the  common  and  appropriate 
sense  of  the  word.  p.  131.  When  we  say 
that  he  denies  the  justice  of  God,  we  mean 
that  he  denies  that  justice  in  its  common  and 


14  REVIEW    OF 

£ippropriate  sense,  is  an  essential  attribute  of 
the  divine  nature.  Tliere  is  nothing  in  his 
nature  that  leads  to  the  punishment  of  sin, 
but  benevolence,  or  a  regard  to  the  happi- 
ness of  the  universe.  If  that  is  secured,  sin 
and  all  sin  may  go  unpunished  for  ever.  This 
we  say  is  a  denial  of  divine  justice. 

It  is  a  principle  of  our  nature,  and  a  com- 
mand of  God,  that  we  should  regard  him  as 
absolutely  perfect;  that  every  moral  excel- 
lence which  we  find  in  ourselves  we  should 
refer  to  him  in  an  infinite  degree.  Why  do 
we  believe  that  God  is  merciful,  but  because 
he  has  so  made  us  that  we  approve  of  mer- 
cy, and  because  he  has  in  his  word  declared 
himself  to  be  full  of  compassion?  Our  moral 
nature  is  as  much  a  revelation  of  God's  per- 
fections, as  the  heavens  are  of  his  wisdom 
and  power.  If,  therefore,  he  has  implanted 
in  us  a  sentiment  of  justice,  distinct  from  that 
of  benevolence,  we  are  constrained  by  the 
very  constitution  of  our  nature  to  refer  that 
perfection  to  God.  All  men  in  fact  do  it.  It 
enters  into  the  sense  of  responsibility,  into  the 
nature  of  remorse,  and  into  that  fearful  look- 
ing for  of  judgment  which  manifest  them- 
selves in  every  human  breast.  Men  know 
that  God  is  just,  for  they  in  their  measure  are 
just;  and  they  instinctively  fear  the  punish- 
ment of  their  sins.  To  be  told  that  God  is 
only  benevolent,  and  that  he  punishes  only 
when  the  happiness  of  his  government  re- 
quires it,  is  to  destroy  our  whole  allegiance 
to  God,  and  to  do  violence  to  the  constitution 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  15 

of  our  nature.  This  is  a  doctrine  that  can 
only  be  held  as  a  theory.  It  is  in  conflict 
with  the  most  intimate  moral  convictions  of 
men.  This,  as  already  remarked,  is  evinced 
by  the  sacrificial  rites  of  all  ages  and  nations, 
which  derive  their  whole  character  and  im- 
port from  the  assumption  that  God  is  just. 
If  justice  is  merged  into  benevolence,  they 
cease  to  have  any  significance  as  propitiatory 
offerings.  If  then  distributive  justice,  justice 
"  in  its  common  and  appropriate  sense,^'  is 
by  the  common  consciousness  of  men  declared 
to  be  a  virtue,  it  is  thereby  revealed  to  belong 
to  God;  and  he  can  no  more  cease  to  be  just, 
than  he  can  cease  to  be  benevolent  or  holy. 
This  is  only  saying  that  if  moral  excellence 
leads  us  to  judge  that  sin  in  itself  deserves 
punishment,  then  the  infinite  moral  excel- 
lence of  God  cannot  but  lead  him  to  treat  it 
as  it  deserves. 

Again,  it  is  included  in  our  conception  of 
God  as  absolutely  independent  and  self-suffi- 
cient, that  the  reasons  of  his  acts  should  be 
in  himself.  He  is  absolutely  perfect,  he  acts 
with  undeviating  rectitude,  and  by  so  acting 
he  promotes  the  highest  good  of  his  creatures. 
But  the  good  of  his  creatures  is  not  the  end 
of  his  actions,  for  "  of  him  and  through  him 
and  to  him  are  all  things.'^  It  is  to  subordi- 
nate God  to  the  creature,  to  make  the  crea- 
ture the  end  of  his  actions.  He  rewards  one 
man  and  punishes  another,  not  because  he 
will  thus  make  others  happy,  but  because  it  is 


16  REVIEW    OP 

right,  and  by  doing  right  the  greatest  good  to 
others  is  the  result.  This  is  the  view  which 
both  reason  and  Scripture  presents  of  God  as 
infinite  and  self-sufficient,  who  is  the  begin- 
ning and  the  end  of  all  things.  It  is  hence 
plain  how  the  justice  of  God  necessarily 
flows  from  his  holiness.  He  is  so  holy  that 
he  delights  in  all  that  is  good,  and  hates  all 
that  is  evil;  and  if  he  acts  agreeable  to  his 
nature,  he  constantly  manifests  this  love  of 
excellence  and  hatred  of  sin.  But  what  is 
reward  and  punishment  but  the  manifesta- 
tion of  the  approbation  or  disapprobation  of 
God?  If  holiness  is  communion  with  him, 
sin  is  alienation  from  him ;  if  his  favour  goes 
out  towards  the  one,  his  displeasure  goes  out 
towards  the  other;  if  the  one  is  attracted,  the 
other  is  repelled.  The  attributes  of  God  are 
not  so  many  distinct  qualities,  but  one  perfec* 
tion  of  excellence,  diversified  in  our  concep- 
tions, by  the  diversity  of  the  objects  towards 
which  it  is  manifested.  The  justice  of  God 
is  therefore  nothing  but  the  holiness  of  God 
in  relation  to  sin.  So  long  as  he  is  holy,  he 
must  be  just;  he  must  repel  sin,  which  is  the 
highest  idea  we  can  form  of  punishment. 
To  say  then  that  God  punishes  only  for  gov- 
ernmental reasons,  is  to  destroy  our  very 
conception  of  his  nature. 

That  distributive  justice  is  an  essential  at- 
tribute of  God,  is  therefore  revealed  to  us  in 
the  very  constitution  of  our  nature,  in  which 
we  find  a  sense  of  justice,  which  is  no  more 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  17 

a  form  of  benevolence  than  it  is  of  reverence. 
It  is  revealed  in  all  the  operations  of  con- 
science ;  in  the  common  consciousness  of 
men,  as  expressed  in  all  their  prayers,  con- 
fessions and  sacrificial  rites.  It  is  revealed 
in  the  Scriptures  in  every  possible  way;  in 
all  they  teach  of  the  nature  of  God,  of  his 
holiness,  of  his  hatred  of  sin,  of  his  determina- 
tion to  punish  it;  in  the  institution  of  sacri- 
fices, and  in  the  law.  If  the  precepts  of  the 
law  are  an  expression  of  the  divine  perfec- 
tion, so  is  the  penalty.  If  the  one  declare 
what  it  is  right  for  God  to  require,  the  other 
declares  what  it  is  right  for  him  to  inflict.  If 
God  does  not  command  us  to  love  him, 
merely  to  make  his  dominions  happy,  neither 
does  he  punish  merely  for  the  public  good. 
The  law  is  a  revelation  of  what  is  right,  and 
God  will  require  and  do  right  for  its  own 
sake,  and  not  for  another  and  a  lower  end. 
God  then  is  just,  and  Dr.  Beman  and  his 
theory,  by  denying  that  there  is  any  such 
attribute  in  God  as  justice  distinct  from  be- 
nevolence, do  equal  violence  to  conscience, 
reason  and  the  Bible. 

Dr.  Beman,  again,  denies  that  Christ  made 
a  true  and  proper  satisfaction  to  divine  jus- 
tice, and  thus  departs  from  the  common  faith 
of  Christendom,  and  seriously  vitiates  the 
whole  doctrine  of  redemption.  It  is  well 
known  that  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation, 
there  was  no  controversy  between  Protest- 
ants and  Romanists  either  as  to  the  necessity 
or  nature  of  the  atonement.     All  classes  of 


18  REVIEW    OF 

Protestants  and  the  Church  of  Rome  itself, 
united  in  teaching,  1.  That  the  Son  of  God 
having  assumed  our  nature  obeyed  and  suf- 
fered in  our  stead,  thereby  making  a  true, 
proper  and  complete  satisfaction  for  our  sins. 
And  2.  That  his  righteousness  was  so  given 
or  imputed  unto  us  as  to  constitute  us  right- 
eous in  the  sight  of  God.  The  Romanists 
even  reproached  Protestants  for  not  coming 
up  to  their  doctrine  on  this  subject,  insisting 
that  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  was  not  only  full 
and  equivalent,  but  superabundant.  "Pre- 
tium,  says  the  Cat.  Rom.  i.  5,  15,  quod 
Christus  pro  nobis  persolvit,  debitis  nostris 
non  par  solum  et  aequale  fuit,  verum  ea 
longe  superavit."  It  is  one  of  the  standing 
heads  of  theology  in  the  Romish  systems, 
Satisfactio  Christi  fuit  de  rigore  justitias, 
which  they  prove  ;  and  answer  the  common 
Socinian  objections,  viz.  that  such  a  satisfac- 
tion destroys  the  grace  of  salvation,  that  it  is 
impossible  that  the  temporal  sufferings  of 
Christ  should  have  such  efficacy,  &c.  As  to 
their  views  of  the  second  point  above  men- 
tioned it  is  enough  to  quote  the  following 
passage  from  Turrettin,  vol.  2,  p.  709.  "  It 
is  not  questioned,"  he  says,  "  whether  the 
righteousness  and  merit  of  Christ  are  im- 
puted to  us ;  for  this  the  Papists  dare  not 
deny.  The  Council  of  Trent,  Sess.  vi.  c.  8, 
says, '  Christ  by  his  most  holy  passion  on  the 
cross  merited  justification  for  us,  and  satis- 
fied God  the  Father  in  our  behalf,  and  no  one 
can  be  righteous  to  whom  the  merits  of  the 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  19 

passion  of  onr  Lord  Jesus  Christ  are  not  com- 
municated/ Hence  Vasques  in  1.  2.  q.  114. 
disp.  222.  chap.  1.  says,  ^We  concede  that 
not  only  what  is  within  us,  as  sin,  faith,  right- 
eousness, may  be  imputed  to  us,  but  also 
what  is  without  us,  as  the  merits  and  obedi- 
ence of  Christ;  because  not  only  what  is  with- 
in, but,  also  what  is  without,  on  account  of 
which  something  is  given  to  us,  is  said  to  be- 
long to  us,  (ad  aliquem  effectum,)  as  though 
they  were  really  our  own.'  Bellarmin  Lib. 
2.  de  Justif.  cap.  7,  acknowledges  the  same 
thing,  when  he  says,  ^  If  Protestants  meant 
only  that  the  merits  of  Christ  are  imputed  to 
us,  because  God  gives  them  to  us,  so  that  we 
can  present  them  to  God  for  our  sins,  he 
having  assumed  the  burden  of  making  satis- 
faction for  us,  and  of  reconciling  us  to  the 
Father,  the  doctrine  would  be  true.'  This  is 
in  fact  precisely  what  we  do  mean.  For 
when  he  adds,  « we  hold  that  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  is  so  imputed  to  us,  as  by  it 
we  become  formally  or  inherently  just,'  he 
asserts  what  is  gratuitous  and  false,  on  ac- 
count of  his  own  perverse  and  preposterous 
theory  of  moral  justification."* 

*  It  is  characteristic  of  the  Church  of  Rome  that  while 
she  holds  the  truth,  she  contrives  to  make  it  of  no  effect 
by  her  traditions.  Thus  while  she  teaches  that  the  merit 
of  Christ  is  the  ground  of  our  justification,  she  makes 
those  merits  accessible  only  through  her  ministrations, 
and  confounds  justification  and  sanctification.  And  while 
she  holds  the  truth  as  to  the  nature  of  Christ's  satisfaction, 
she  chooses  to  confine  it  to  original  and  mortal  sins,  that 
she  may  make  room  for  her  own  doctrine  of  satisfaction 


20  REVIEW    OP 

The  Lutheran  church  held  the  strictest 
form  of  doctrine  as  to  the  nature  of  Christ's 
satisfaction,  and  as  to  justification.  That 
church  teaches  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ 
were  strictly  penal,  that  his  obedience  and 
death  made  a  full  and  proper  satisfaction  to 
the  law  and  justice  of  God,  and  are  imputed 
to  the  believers  as  the  sole  ground  of  their 
justification.  We  cannot  swell  our  article 
with  numerous  citations  in  proof  of  a  well 
known  fact.  In  the  Apology  for  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  p.  93,  it  is  said,  "  Christus, 
quia  sine  peccato  subiit  pcenam  peccati,  et 
victima  pro  nobis  factus  est,  sustulit  illud  jus 
legis,  ne  accuset,  ne  damnet  hos  qui  credunt 
in  ipsum,  quia  ipse  est  propitiatio  pro  eis, 
propter  quam  justi  reputantnr."  In  the  Form 
of  Concord,  it  is  said,  "  Justitia  ilia,  quae  co- 
ram Deo  fidei  aut  credentibus  ex  mera  gratia 
imputatur,  est  obedientia,  passio,  et  resurrec- 
tio  Christi,  quibus  ille  legi  nostra  causa  satis- 
fecit  et  peccata  nostra  expiavit."  p.  684. 
Again,  p.  696.  "Humana  natura  sola,  sine 
divinitate,  aeterno  omnipotenti  Deo  neque 
obedientia,  neque  passione  pro  totius  mundi 
peccatis  satisfacere  valuisset.  Divinitas  vero 
sola  sine  humanitate  inter  Deum  et  nos  me- 
diatoris  partes  implere  non  potuisset.  Cum 
autem  .  .  .  obedientia  ilia  Christi  non  sit 
unius  duntaxat  naturae,  sed  totius  personae; 
ideo  ea  est  perfectissima  pro  humano  genere 

by  g'ood  works  and  penances.  The  infinite  value  of  the 
Saviour's  merit,  she  perverts  as  a  source,  whence  to  derive 
the  power  to  grant  indulgences,  &c. 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  21 

satisfactio  et  expiatio;  qua  aeternae  et  immii- 
tabili  justitiae  divinae  ....  satis  est  fac- 
tum.'' 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  prove  that  the 
Reformed  churches  held  precisely  the  same 
doctrine.  There  was  no  controversy  between 
them  and  the  Lutherans  either  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ,  or  as  to 
justification.  They  differed  only  as  to  the  de- 
sign of  Christ's  death,  whether  it  had  respect 
equally  to  all  men,  or  had  a  special  reference 
to  his  own  people,  a  point  which  we  hope  to 
have  room  to  discuss  in  the  sequel  of  this 
article.  We  are  now  concerned  only  about 
the  nature  of  the  atonement.  Bretschneider 
states,  in  a  few  words,  the  common  doctrine 
on  this  subject  of  the  two  great  divisions  of 
the  Protestant  world.  After  saying  that  God, 
according  to  that  doctrine  is  immutably  just, 
and  therefore  must  punish  sin,  and  yet  being 
immutably  benevolent,  he  determined  to  pro- 
vide redemption,  he  proceeds,  "  For  this  it 
was  necessary,  l.that  some  one  in  the  place  of 
men,  should  fulfil  the  law  which  they  ought 
to  have  kept,  and  2.  that  some  one  should 
endure  the  punishment  (Strafen)  which  they 
had  incurred.  This  no  mere  man  could  do, 
for  no  man,  (since  all  are  subject  to  original 
sin,)  could  perfectly  keep  the  law,  and  every 
man  must  suffer  for  his  own  sin.  Neither 
could  any  divine  person  accomplish  the  task, 
since  he  could  not  sustain  suffering  and 
punishment.  He  alone  who  is  at  once  God 
and  man,  with  a  human  nature  free  from  sin, 


22  REVIEW    OF 

conld  accomplish  the  work."*  This  right- 
eousness, he  adds,  "God  imputes  to  men  as 
though  they  had  wrought  it  out  themselves.'' 
Against  this  doctrine  of  satisfaction  to  the 
divine  justice,  the  Socinians  were  the  first  to 
object.t  Under  the  pressure  of  their  objec- 
tions the  Remonstrants  in  Holland  gave  way, 
and  Grotius  in  his  work,  De  Satisfactione 
Christi,  though  defending  in  the  main  the 
Catholic  or  common  doctrine,  introduced  the 
principle,  that  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  was 
rendered  to  the  governmental  justice  of  God. 
Very  far  below  the  doctrine  of  Grotius,  in 
many  important  respects,  is  the  theory  of  Dr. 
Beman.  In  some  cases  he  falls  even  below 
Socinus.  "  God  as  the  supreme  governor," 
he  says,  "must  so  conduct  all  his  movements, 
whether  of  justice  or  mercy,  as  to  leave  on 
the  minds  of  dependent  creatures,  a  deep  and 
just  impression,  that  the  penalty  of  the  law 
will  be  executed,  and  that  the  sinner  must 
perish.  To  fix  this  impression  indelibly  in 
the  breast  of  the  sinner,  is  the  object  of  the 
atonement,''^  P-  41.±     This  however  is  prob- 

*  Bretschneider's  Handbuch  der  Dogmatik.  vol.  2, 
p.  266. 

t  In  the  Racovian  Catechism,  it  is  asked,  "  Did  Christ 
die,  that  he  might,  properly  speaking,  merit  our  salvation, 
or,  in  like  manner  properly  speaking,  discharge  the  debt 
due  for  our  sins  ?  Ans.  Although  Christians  generally 
now  hold  that  opinion,  yet  the  sentiment  is  false,  erro- 
neous, and  exceedingly  pernicious." 

\    Socinus  taught  that   the   atonement  was  designed 

1.  To  confirm  the  new  covenant  and  all  its  promises,  es- 
pecially those  of  the  pardon  of  sin,  and  of  eternal  life. 

2.  To  assure  us  of  the  love  of  God.     3.  To  induce  us  to 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  23 

ably  a  lapsus,  such  an  one  however,  as  few 
men  could  make.  He  generally  includes 
other  intelligent  creatures.  Still,  with  him, 
the  atonement  is  a  mere  method  of  instruc- 
tion; a  means  to  exhibit  a  certain  truth  for 
the  moral  restraint  or  improvement  of  those 
to  whom  it  is  made  known.  The  gratuitous 
forgiveness  of  sin,  it  is  said,  would  tend  to 
produce  the  impression  that  God  was  indif- 
ferent to  his  law,  and  that  sin  might  be  com- 
mitted with  impunity.  To  counteract  that 
impression,  to  teach,  or  declare  that  sin  was, 
in  the  sight  of  God,  an  evil,  and  would  be 
punished,  and  thus  to  open  a  way  to  exercise 
mercy,  without  weakening  the  motive  to 
obedience,  is  the  design  of  the  death  of  Christ 
Justice  in  its  "common  appropriate  sense 
he  says,  "was  not  satisfied  by  the  atonement 
of  Jesus  Christ."  p.  131.  "The  law,  or  jus- 
tice, that  is,  distributive  justice,  as  expressed 
in  the  law,  has  received  no  satisfaction  at  all." 
p.  133.  So  far  as  the  atonement  secured  the 
government  of  God  from  the  evils  of  gratui- 
tous forgiveness,  it  was  a  satisfaction  to  his 
benevolence,  but  not  to  justice  in  any  other 
sense,  p.  182.  It  was  designed  to  teach  a 
certain  truth;  it  is  "a  symbolical  and  sub- 
stantive expression  of  God's  regard  to  the 
moral  law."  p.  35.  "  It  furnishes  an  expres- 
sion of  his  regard  for  the  moral  law,"  and 
"evinces  his  determination  to  punish  sin," 

embrace  the  gospel.  4.  To  encourage  us  by  his  ex- 
ample to  trust  in  God.  5.  To  abrogate  the  old  dispen- 
sation, &/C. 


J? 


24  REVIEW    OF 

p.  91.  "To  fix  indelibly  this  impression  on 
the  heart  of  the  sinner  is  the  object  of  the 
atonement."  p.  42. 

Our  first  remark  on  this  subject,  after 
showing,  as  we  think  we  have  done,  that  the 
whole  basis  of  this  theory  is  false,  is  that  it 
is  destitute  of  any  semblance  of  support  from 
Scripture.  It  hardly  purports  to  be  any  thing 
more  than  a  hypothesis  on  Avhich  to  reconcile 
what  the  Bible  teaches  with  our  views  of 
moral  government.  It  is  a  device  to  make 
the  atonement  rational,  to  explain  away  the 
mystery  which  hangs  over  it,  and  makes  the 
whole  august  transaction  perfectly  intelligi- 
ble. Dr.  Beman  says  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  atonement  enters  "  into  the  very  texture 
of  revelation,  warp  and  woof.'^  It  is,  he  says, 
"  the  vital  principle,  in  the  very  heart  of  the 
gospel."  p.  62.  Surely  then  we  have  a  right 
to  have  it  treated  as  "a  purely  biblical  ques- 
tion," as  he  affirms  it  to  be.  Yet  in  his  chap- 
ter on  the  nature  of  the  atonement,  as  far  as 
we  can  find,  he  refers  but  to  one  solitary  text 
in  the  whole  Bible !  It  is  a  theory  woven 
warp  and  woof  out  of  the  understanding,  not 
even  out  of  the  conscience.  The  solitary 
passage  which  Dr.  Beman  cites  as  teaching 
his  doctrine  is  Rom.  iii.  25,  where  it  is  said 
that  God  set  forth  Christ  as  a  propitiation  for 
our  sins,  to  declare  his  righteousness.  "  The 
object  of  the  atonement,"  he  says,  "  is  here 
stated  in  explicit  terms.  It  was  required  and 
made  in  order  to  open  a  consistent  way  for 
the  publication  of  pardon,  or  for  the  exercise 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  25 

of  grace  to  sinners.  Its  purpose  was  to  de- 
clare the  righteousness  or  moral  rectitude 
and  perfection  of  God  in  dispensing,  in  this 
instance,  with  the  Hteral  execution  of  the 
penalty  of  the  law,  and  in  bestowing  eternal 
life  upon  those  who  deserved  to  die.'^  p.  124. 
He  afterwards,  p.  132,  says,  the  words  ^t^^^ 
and  righteousness  as  here  used  have  "no 
direct  reference  to  law,"  but  express  "  those 
principles  of  virtue  or  benevolence  by  which 
we  are  bound  to  regulate  our  conduct,  and 
by  which  God  governs  the  universe."  Then 
of  course  the  passage  might  be  rendered, 
"  Christ  was  set  forth  as  a  propitiation  to  de- 
clare the  benevolence  of  God,  that  he  might 
be  benevolent  even  in  remitting  the  sins  of 
those  that  believe;"  an  interpretation  which 
needs  no  refutation.  The  first  remark  then 
to  be  made  on  this  passage  is,  that  it  teaches 
the  very  reverse  of  what  it  is  cited  to  prove. 
Dr.  Beman  himself  says  that  in  their  "com- 
mon and  appropriate  sense,"  the  woxdiS  just 
and  justice  have  reference  to  law,  and  express 
what  he  calls  distributive  justice.  Then  if 
the  language  of  the  apostle  is  to  be  taken  in 
"  common  and  appropriate  sense,"  it  teaches 
that  the  propitiation  of  Christ  was  designed 
as  an  exhibition  of  justice  in  its  proper  sense; 
in  order  to  make  it  apparent  that  God  was 
just  even  in  remitting  sin;  that  the  demands 
of  justice  had  not  been  sacrificed,  but  on  the 
contrary  fully  satisfied.  It  is  only  by  taking 
the  words  in  a  sense  that  is  inappropriate 
and  unusual;  that  any  other  doctrine  can  be 
c 


26  REVIEW    OF 

got  out  of  the  passage.  Besides,  Dr.  Bcman's 
interpretation  is  not  only  in  direct  opposition 
to  the  common  meaning  of  the  words,  but  to 
the  necessary  sense  of  the  context.  Satisfac- 
tion to  justice  is  the  formal  idea  of  a  propi- 
tiation, and  saying  that  Christ  was  a  propi- 
tiation, is  only  saying  in  other  words,  that 
our  sins  were  laid  on  him,  that  he  bore  the 
chastisement  or  punishment  of  our  sins,  in 
order  that  God  might  be  just,  in  justifying 
those  that  believe.  Again,  this  interpretation 
is  agreeable  to  the  sense  in  which  the  words 
just,  righteous,  righteousness,  &c.  are  fami- 
liarly used  by  the  apostle.  Is  God  unright- 
eous, he  asks,  who  taketh  vengeance  ?  Rom. 
iii.  5.  He  denounces  the  divine  judgment, 
by  saying,  God  will  cut  short  the  work  in 
righteousness.  Rom.  ix.  28.  See  also  2  Thess. 
i.  5,  6.  The  obvious  sense  then  of  the  pas- 
sage in  Romans  iii.  25,  is  the  opposite  to  that 
which  Dr.  Beman  gives  it.* 

*  "  We  see  ourselves  obliged,"  says  Tholuck,  "  to  ad- 
mit,  in  this  place,  the  idea  of  distributive  justice  (vergel- 
tende  Gerechtigkeit)."  He  afterwards  says  that  the  loss 
of  that  idea  in  theology  has  occasioned  "unspeakable 
evil,"  and  that  the  doctrine  of  atonement  "  must  remain 
sealed  up  until  it  is  acknowledged."  See  his  ROmerbrief 
ed.  1842,  He  refers  with  approbation  to  Usteri's  exposi- 
tion  of  this  passage  in  his  Paulinischer  LehrbegrifF.  On 
turning  to  that  author  we  find  he  says,  his  object  is  to 
prove  "  that  the  representation  contained  in  Rom.  iii.  24, 
25,  viz.  that  God,  to  declare  his  righteousness,  laid  on 
Christ  the  punishment  of  the  sins  of  men,  is  the  doctrine 
of  Paul."  And  he  accordingly  goes  on  to  prove  it,  par- 
ticularly from  Rom.  viii.  3.  Usteri  is  one  of  those  writers, 
who  do  not  feel  called  upon  to  believe  what  the  Scriptures 
teach,  though  they  make  it  a  point  of  honour  to  state  its 
meaning  fairly. 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  27 

But  if  we  admit  that  the  passage  in  ques- 
tion does  teach  that  the  atonement  was  de- 
signed to  set  forth  God's  regard  for  the  good 
of  the  universe,  what  then  ?  would  it  estab- 
hsh  Dr.  Beman's  theory?  Far  from  it.  It  is 
one  of  the  most  common  fallacies  of  theologi- 
cal writers,  to  seize  upon  some  one  passage, 
and  shutting  their  eyes  on  all  others,  assume 
that  it  teaches  the  whole  truth  on  a  given 
subject.  The  death  of  Christ  was  designed 
to  answer  manifold  ends,  more  perhaps  than 
it  has  yet  entered  into  the  heart  of  man  to 
imagine.  It  would  be  the  extreme  of  folly 
to  take  one  of  those  ends,  and  infer  that  its 
attainment  was  its  whole  design,  or  let  us  into 
the  full  knowledge  of  its  nature.  Is  it  not 
said  a  hundred  times  that  the  death  of  Christ 
was  designed  to  exhibit  the  love  of  God? 
Does  this  prove  that  it  does  not  display  his 
righteousness  ?  It  is  said  to  declare  his  wis- 
dom; does  that  prove  it  does  not  display  his 
love  ?  It  was  designed  to  bring  us  unto  God, 
but  does  that  prove  it  was  not  also  an  atone- 
ment ?  It  is  not  by  taking  any  one  view,  or 
any  one  text,  that  we  can  arrive  at  the  truth. 
We  must  have  a  theory  which  will  embrace 
all  the  facts;  a  doctrine  which  includes  all 
the  revelations  God  has  made  on  this  subject. 
The  objection  to  Dr.  Beman's  view  of  the 
design  of  Christ's  death,  is  not  that  it  is  false, 
but  that  it  is  defective.  It  states  only  a  part, 
and  a  subordinate  part  of  the  truth.  The 
atonement  is  an  exhibition  of  God's  purpose 
to  maintain  his  law  and  to  inflict  its  penalty, 


28  REVIEW  OF 

and  thus  to  operate  as  a  restraint  and  a  mo- 
tive on  all  intelligent  beings,  because  it  in- 
volves the  execution  of  that  penalty.  It  is 
this  that  gives  it  all  its  power.  It  would  be 
no  exhibition  of  justice,  if  it  were  not  an  ex- 
ercise of  justice  ;  it  would  not  teach  that  the 
penalty  of  law  must  be  inflicted,  unless  it 
was  inflicted.  We  hold  all  the  little  truth 
there  is  in  Dr.  Beman's  doctrine,  but  we  hold 
unspeakably  more. 

Our  immediate  object,  however,  is  to  call 
attention  to  the  entire  absence  of  all  scriptural 
support  for  this  theory.  We  have  already 
shown  that  the  only  passage  directly  referred 
to  does  not  teach  what  it  is  cited  to  prove,  and 
that  if  it  did,  it  would  give  no  support  to  the 
theory  built  upon  it.  The  surprising  fact, 
however,  should  be  more  distinctly  noticed, 
that  while  the  Bible  is  said  to  be  full  of  the 
doctrine  of  atonement,  scarcely  an  attempt  is 
made  to  prove  its  nature  from  the  Bible. 
Christ  is  said  to  be  a  sacrifice,  to  bear  our 
sins,  to  be  a  propitiation,  a  ransom,  &c.  &c., 
but  no  attempt  is  made  to  tell  us  what  all  this 
means.  There  is  no  examination  of  the 
terms,  no  elucidation  of  the  meaning  they 
bore  in  the  age  of  the  apostles.  The  writer 
does  not  even  pretend  to  found  his  theory 
upon  them.  In  the  chapter  in  which  he  gives 
his  own  view  of  the  nature  of  the  atone- 
ment, they  are  scarcely  even  mentioned.  The 
whole  aftair  is  a  piece  of  pure  rationalistic 
speculation,  formed  on  certain  principles  of 
moral  philosophy  which  have  nothing  to  do 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  29 

with  the  Bible.  It  is  assumed  that  happiness 
is  the  end  of  all  things;  that  to  promote  hap- 
piness is  the  essence  of  virtue  ;  that  the  pre- 
vention of  crime,  which  causes  misery,  is  the 
end  of  punishment;  that  the  death  of  Christ, 
as  it  tends  to  prevent  crime,  supersedes  the 
necessity  of  punishment.  There  is  the  the- 
ory. And  we  can  hardly  avoid  saying  that 
it  has  more  affinity  with  Jeremy  Bentham, 
and  "  the  greatest  happiness"  system,  than  it 
has  with  the  Bible,  or  with  the  sympathies 
of  Christians. 

Our  next  remark  on  this  theory  is  that  it 
is  perfectly  arbitrary.  The  Bible  teaches  that 
Christ  was  a  sacrifice,  that  he  bore  our  sins, 
that  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was  laid 
upon  him;  that  he  propitiated  God;  was  a 
ransom  ;  was  made  sin,  that  he  might  be 
made  righteous.  These  and  similar  state- 
ments set  forth  the  nature  of  the  atonement. 
There  are  many  others  describing  some  of  its 
manifold  effects.  It  declared  the  justice  of 
God,  exhibited  his  wisdom,  set  us  an  exam- 
ple, purifies  his  people,  and  in  short,  glorifies 
God  and  promotes  the  best  interest  of  his 
kingdom.  If  you  take  in  the  former  state- 
ments, there  is  perfect  unity  in  all  these  re- 
presentations. The  work  of  Christ  is  a  dis- 
play of  the  justice  and  love  of  God,  it  leads 
men  to  repentance,  and  exerts  this  moral 
influence  on  the  universe,  because  it  is  a 
satisfaction  to  divine  justice,  and  answers  the 
demands  of  his  law.  But  if  the  scriptural 
account  of  its  nature  be  rejected,  then  it  is  a 


30  REVIEW  OF 

matter  to  be  arbitrarily  decided,  which  of  its 
effects  shall  be  selected  as  determining  its 
character.  If  Dr.  Beman  says  it  is  an  atone- 
ment because  it  expresses  God's  regard  to 
the  order  and  welfare  of  his  government; 
Socinus  may  say,  it  is  an  atonement  because 
it  assures  us  of  the  love  of  God.  The  one  is 
just  as  much  right  as  the  other;  for  both  are 
right  as  far  as  they  go ;  but  both  are  arbi- 
trary in  selecting  what  suits  their  taste,  or 
their  philosophy,  and  rejecting  all  the  rest. 
Dr.  Beman  does  not  pretend  that  his  doctrine 
is  taught  in  those  passages  of  Scripture  which 
really  describe  the  nature  of  the  atonement, 
neither  does  Socinus.  Both  say  that  all  is 
figurative.  The  one  says  its  nature  is  to  be 
inferred  from  one  of  its  effects,  the  other  from 
another;  the  one  considers  it  as  designed 
mainly  to  teach  God's  rectoral  justice,  the 
other  his  love.  It  is  perfectly  plain  that  on 
this  plan  the  citadel  is  surrendered.  Dr.  Be- 
man can  have  nothing  to  say  to  the  Socinian, 
which  the  Socinian  cannot  retort  on  Dr.  Be- 
man. Both  admit  that  we  are  saved  by  the 
death  of  Christ;  the  one  affirming  that  it  is 
because  it  brings  us  to  repentance  and  thus 
makes  our  forgiveness  consistent  with  the 
character  of  God  and  the  interests  of  his 
kingdom ;  the  other,  that  it  is  because  it  re- 
conciles forgiveness  with  the  good  of  the  uni- 
verse, in  a  different  way. 

It  may  also  on  this  ground  be  made  a  fair 
subject  of  debate,  which  view  really  assigns 
most  importance  to  the  death  of  Christ.    Is 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  31 

it  clear  that  fear  is  more  conservative  than, 
love  ?  that  the  exhibition  of  God's  regard  to 
law,  would  have  a  greater  effect  in  promot- 
ing holiness  than  the  exhibition  of  his  mercy? 
We  very  much  doubt  it.  And  we  confess 
ourselves  very  much  at  a  loss  to  see  why  the 
Socinian  view  of  the  design  of  the  Redeem- 
er's death,  should  be  regarded  as  a  rejection 
of  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  if  his  death  was 
merely  designed  to  exert  a  conservative  in- 
fluence on  the  moral  government  of  God. 
Certain  it  is  that  this  is  not  the  doctrine 
against  which  the  early  Socinians  contended. 

It  is  further  plain  that  the  principles  of 
interpretation  which  Dr.  Beman  is  obliged  to 
adopt  to  reconcile  his  theory  with  the  Bible, 
are  all  that  is  wanted  to  serve  the  purpose  of 
Socinians.  They  both  deny  that  we  are  to 
take  the  language  of  Scripture  according  to 
its  "common  and  appropriate  sense,"  and 
agreeable  to  the  mode  of  thinking  prevalent 
in  the  age  in  which  it  was  uttered.  The 
vastly  different  views  entertained  by  Dr.  Be- 
man and  Socinus  as  to  the  person  of  Christ, 
make  of  course  a  corresponding  difference  in 
their  whole  rehgious  s^^stem.  But  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  atonement,  we  have  always 
considered  the  ground  advocated  by  Dr.  Be- 
man, as  utterly  untenable  against  the  argu- 
ments of  Socinians.  It  is  a  rejection  of  the 
scriptural  account,  and  after  that  is  done,  one 
theory  has  as  much  authority  as  another. 

Our  third  remark  is,  that  this  theory  be- 
sides being  independent  of  Scripture,  and 


32  REVIEW  OP 

perfectly  arbitrary,  is  directly  opposed  to  the 
explicit  teaching  of  the  word  of  God.  Be  it 
remembered  that  the  Bible  is  admitted  to  be 
full  of  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement ;  that  it 
is  the  great  central  point  in  the  religion  of 
redeemed  man.  It  is  also  admitted  that  God 
has  revealed  not  only  the  fact  that  we  are 
saved  by  the  obedience  and  death  of  Christ, 
but  also  the  way  in  which  his  work  is  effica- 
cious to  that  end.  The  Socinian  says,  it  is 
by  its  moral  effect  upon  men;  Dr.  Beman 
says,  it  is  from  its  tendency  to  prevent  crime 
and  preserve  the  order  of  the  universe;  the 
common  faith  of  Christendom  is,  that  Christ 
saves  us  by  satisfying  the  demands  of  law  and 
justice  in  our  stead.  As  the  Bible  is  full  of 
this  doctrine  it  must  enable  us  to  decide 
which  of  these  views  is  right,  for  the  Bible 
was  intended  to  teach  us  the  way  of  salva- 
tion. We  are  taught  then  first,  that  Christ 
bore  our  sins.  Heb.  ix.  28,  1  Pet.  ii.  24,  Is. 
liii.  12,  &c.  It  cannot  be  disputed  that  the 
usual  scriptural  meaning  of  the  expression, 
to  bear  sin,  is  to  bear  the  punishment  due  to 
sin.  Lev.  xxii.  9.  If  they  keep  not  my  ordi- 
nance "  they  shall  bear  sin  for  it."  Num. 
xviii.  22,  xiv.  33.  Lev.  v.  1,  17.  "He  is 
guilty,  and  shall  bear  his  iniquity."  Ez. 
xviii.  20.  "  The  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die. 
The  son  shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of  the 
father,  neither  shall  the  father  bear  the  iniqui- 
ty of  the  son."  No  one  doubts  that  this 
means,  the  son  shall  not  be  punished  for  the 
sins  of  the  father,  nor  the  father  for  the  sins 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  33 

of  the  son.  When  therefore  the  Scriptures 
say  that  Christ  bore  onr  sins,  they  say  in  ex- 
press terms,  that  he  bore  the  punishment  of 
our  sins.  This  is  rendered  the  more  certain, 
because  he  bore  them  by  suffering,  or  by 
dying;  and  because  the  Scriptures  express 
tliis  same  idea  in  so  many  other  ways.  This 
account  of  the  nature  of  the  atonement  is 
found  not  only  in  poetical  descriptions  of 
Christ's  sufferings,  but  in  the  most  didactic 
portions  of  the  Bible.  The  language  used 
had  an  established  sense  in  the  minds  of  those 
to  whom  it  was  addressed,  who  could  not 
fail  to  understand  it  according  to  its  obvious 
meaning.  That  meaning,  therefore,  we  are 
bound,  by  all  sound  rules  of  interpretation, 
to  believe  the  sacred  writers  intended  to  con- 
vey. How  does  Dr.  Beman  answer  this? 
Does  he  attempt  to  show  that  the  phrase  "  to 
bear  sin"  does  not  commonly  mean  to  bear  the 
punishment  of  sin  ?  or  that  it  has  not  that 
meaning  when  used  in  reference  to  Christ  ? 
As  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  find,  he  con- 
tents himself  with  some  general  remarks 
against  taking  figurative  language  in  its  lite- 
ral sense.  He  subjects  the  passages,  in  which 
the  phrase  in  question  occurs,  to  no  critical 
examination.  He  makes  no  attempt  to  show 
that  figurative  language  may  not  convey  a 
definite  meaning,  or  that  that  meaning  is  not 
to  be  learnt  from  usage,  and  the  known  opin- 
ions of  those  to  whom  it  is  addressed.  It  is 
enough  for  him  that  he  does  not  like  the  truth, 
which  the  passages  in  question  would  then 


34  REVIEW    OF 

teach ;  that  he  cannot  see  how  the  innocent 
could  so  take  the  place  of  the  guilty  as  to  bear 
their  punishment;  that  he  cannot  reconcile  this 
doctrine  with  the  justice  of  God,  nor  with  his 
views  of  other  portions  of  Scripture.  In  the 
mean  time  the  plain  meaning  of  the  Scrip- 
tures stands,  and  those  who  find  all  other 
scriptural  representations  consistent  with  that 
meaning,  and  to  whom  it  is  in  fact  the  very 
ground  of  their  hope  towards  God,  will  re- 
ceive it  gladly,  and  in  all  its  simplicity.  The 
theory  of  Dr.  Beman,  then,  which  denies 
that  Christ  suffered  the  penalty  due  to  our 
sins,  must  be  admitted  to  be  in  direct  conflict 
with  these  express  declarations  of  the  word 
of  God.* 

Secondly,  the  Scriptures  in  order  to  teach 
us  the  nature  of  atonement,  say  that  Christ 
ofl"ered  himself  as  a  sacrifice  unto  G  od.  What 
then  is,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  a  sacri- 
fice for  sins  ?     "  The  essence  of  a  propitiatory 


*  Professor  Stuart,  in  his  commentary  and  Excursus 
on  Heb.  ix.  28,  says,  "  To  hear  the  sins  of  others,  is  to 
bear  or  endure  the  penalty  due  to  them."  Having  proved 
this,  he  adds,  "  The  sentiment  of  the  clause  then  clearly 
is,  that  Jesus  by  his  death,  (which  could  take  place  but 
once,)  endured  the  penalty  that  our  sins  deserved  or  bore 
the  sorrows  due  to  us."  What  he  further  says,  that 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  not  in  all  respects  and  con- 
sidered  in  every  point  of  view,  an  exact  and  specific  quid 
pro  quo,  as  it  regards  the  penalty  threatened  against  sin, 
that  the  Saviour  did  not  suffer  a  guilty  conscience,  or  des- 
pair, would  be  pertinent,  had  he  first  proved  that  any 
respectable  body  of  Christians  held  any  such  doctrine,  or 
that  a  guilty  conscience,  or  despair  is  an  essential  part  of 
the  penalty  of  the  law. 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  35 

sacrifice,"  says  Storr,  "  is  the  forgiveness  of 
sin,  through  the  transfer  of  punishment  from 
the  actual  offender  to  another."*  The  mode- 
rate Bishop  Burnet  says,  "  The  notion  of  an 
expiatory  sacrifice  which  was  then,  when 
the  New  Testament  was  writ,  well  under- 
stood ail  the  world  over,  both  by  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  was  this,  that  the  sin  of  one  person 
was  transferred  on  a  man  or  beast,  who  upon 
that  was  devoted  or  oflTered  to  God,  and 
suffered  in  the  room  of  the  offending  person; 
and  by  this  oblation,  the  punishment  of  the 
sin  being  laid  on  the  sacrifice,  an  expiation 
was  made  for  sin,  and  the  sinner  was  believ- 
ed to  be  reconciled  to  God."t  That  this  is 
the  correct  view  of  the  scriptural  doctrine  con- 
cerning sacrifices,  may  be  inferred,  1.  From 
its  being  confessedly  the  light  in  which  they 
were  generally  regarded  by  the  Jews  and  by 
the  whole  ancient  world,  and  from  its  being  a 
simple  and  natural  explanation  of  the  service. 
On  this  hypothesis,  every  thing  is  signifi- 
cant and  intelligible.  2.  From  the  express 
didactic  statements  of  the  Bible.  The  life  is 
said  to  be  in  the  blood,  and  "  I  have  given 
it  to  you  as  an  atonement  for  your  souls; 
for  it  is  the  blood  that  maketh  atonement 
for  the  soul  (life).  Lev.  xvii.  11.  The  very 
nature  of  the  service  then  was  the  substitu- 
tion of  life  for  life.  The  life  forfeited  was 
redeemed  by  the  life  paid.  3.  From  all  the 
rites  connected  with  the  service  and  all  the 

*  Zweck  des  Todes  Jesu.  §  8. 

t  Burnet  on  the  Thirty -nine  Articles.    Article  2. 


36  REVIEW    OF 

expressions  employed  concerning  it.  There 
was  to  be  confession  of  sin,  imposition  of 
hands  (as  expressing  the  idea  of  transfer  and 
substitution,)  the  sins  were  said  to  be  laid 
on  the  head  of  the  victim,  which  was  then 
put  to  death,  or,  as  in  the  case  of  the  scape- 
goat, dismissed  into  the  wilderness  and  an- 
other goat  sacrificed  in  its  place.  All  these 
directions  plainly  teach  that  the  nature  of 
expiatory  offerings  consisted  in  the  substitu- 
tion of  the  victim  for  the  offender,  and  in  the 
infliction  of  the  penalty  of  death  incurred  by 
the  one,  upon  the  other.  4.  That  this  is  the 
scriptural  doctrine  on  this  subject,  is  made 
still  plainer  by  the  fact,  that  all  that  is  taught 
by  saying,  that  the  Messiah  bore  our  sins, 
that  our  iniquities  were  laid  upon  him,  that 
he  bore  our  sorrows,  that  the  chastisement  of 
our  peace  was  laid  on  him,  is  expressed  by 
the  prophet  by  saying,  he  made  "his  soul 
an  offering  for  sin."  Then  an  offering  for 
sin,  is  one  on  whom  sin  is  laid,  who  bears 
sins,  i.  e.,  as  has  been  shown,  the  penalty  due 
to  sin.  5.  This  view  of  the  subject  is  further 
confirmed  by  a  consideration  of  the  effects 
ascribed  to  these  sacrifices.  They  made 
atonement;  they  propitiated  God;  they  secur- 
ed the  remission  of  the  penalty  incurred. 
When  an  Israelite  had  committed  any  of- 
fence by  which  he  forfeited  his  standing  in 
the  theocracy,  (that  is,  the  favour  of  God  as 
his  theocratical  ruler,)  he  brought  to  the 
priest  the  appointed  sacrifice,  made  confes- 
sion of  his  sin,  the  victim  was  slain  in  his 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  37 

place,  and  he  was  restored  to  his  standing, 
and  saved  from  being  cut  oif  from  his  peo- 
ple. These  sacrifices  always  produced  these 
effects;  they  always  secured  the  remission  of 
the  theocratical  penalty  for  which  they  were 
offered  and  accepted.  Whether  they  secured 
the  forgiveness  of  the  soul  before  God,  de- 
pended on  the  state  of  mind  of  the  offerer. 
Of  themselves  they  had  no  such  efficacy, 
since  it  was  impossible  that  the  blood  of  bulls 
and  goats  could  take  away  sin.  But  nothing 
is  plainer  from  Scripture,  than  that  the  way 
in  which  the  Israehtes  obtained  the  remission 
of  the  civil  or  theocratical  penalties  which 
they  had  incurred,  was  intended  to  teach  us 
how  sin  is  pardoned  in  the  sight  of  God 
through  Jesus  Christ. 

If  then  the  Scriptures,  according  to  the  al- 
most unanimous  judgment  of  Christians,  teach 
that  the  idea  of  an  expiatory  sacrifice,  is,  that 
by  vicarious  punishment  justice  is  satisfied 
and  sin  forgiven ;  if  this  was  the  view  taken 
of  them  by  Jews  and  Gentiles,  then  does  the 
Bible,  in  so  constantly  representing  Christ  as 
a  propitiation,  as  a  lamb,  as  a  sacrifice  for 
sin,  expressly  teach  that  he  bore  the  penalty 
due  to  our  sins,  that  he  satisfied  divine  jus- 
tice, and  secured  for  all  in  whose  behalf  that 
sacrifice  is  accepted,  the  pardon  of  sin  and 
restoration  to  the  divine  favour.  To  talk  of 
figure  here  is  out  of  the  question.  Admit 
that  the  language  is  figurative,  the  question 
is,  what  idea  was  it  intended  to  convey  ?  be- 
yond doubt  that  which  the  sacred  writers 


38  REVIEW  OP 

knew  with  certainty  would  be  attached  to  it, 
by  their  immediate  readers,  and  which  in  fact 
has  been  attached  to  it  in  all  ages  of  the 
Church.*  To  tell  a  conscience-stricken  Is- 
raelite that  a  sacrifice  was  designed  either  to 
impress  his  own  mind,  or  the  minds  of  others 
with  the  truth  that  God  is  just  or  benevolent, 
would  have  been  a  mockery.  It  was  to  him 
an  atonement,  a  propitiation,  a  vicarious 
punishment,  or  it  was  nothing.  And  it  is  no 
less  a  mockery  to  tell  a  convinced  sinner, 
that  the  death  of  Christ  was  designed  to  lead 
him  to  repentance,  or  to  preserve  the  good 
order  of  the  universe.  Unless  the  Redeemer 
was  a  sacrifice,  on  whom  our  sins  were  laid, 
who  bore  the  penalty  we  had  incurred,  it  is, 
to  such  a  sinner,  no  atonement,  and  no  ade- 
quate ground  of  confidence  toward  God.t 

*  "  It  is  not  possible  for  us  to  preserve"  says  Bishop 
Burnet,  "  any  reverence  for  the  New  Testament,  or  the 
writers  of  it,  so  far  as  to  think  them  even  honest  men,  not 
to  say  inspired  men,  if  we  can  imagine,  that  in  so  sacred 
and  important  a  matter  they  could  exceed  so  much  as  to 
represent  that  a  sacrifice  which  is  not  truly  so.  This  is  a 
subject  which  will  not  bear  figures  and  amplifications; 
it  must  be  treated  strictly,  and  with  a  just  exactness  of 
expression." — Burnet  on  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles,  the 
same  page  quoted  above. 

t  "  The  innate  sense  of  divine  justice,  which  all  men 
possess,  demands  that  the  sinner  should  receive  his  due, 
that  the  stroke  he  has  given  to  the  law,  should  recoil  upon 
himself.  The  deeper  his  sense  of  guilt,  the  less  can  he  be 
satisfied  with  mere  pardon,  and  the  more  does  he  demand 
punishment,  for  by  punishment  he  is  justified.  Whence 
do  we  derive  his  intimate  persuasion  of  God's  justice?  Not 
from  without;  because  men,  as  empirically  guided,  re- 
gard freedom  from  suffering  as  the  highest  good;  it  must 
therefore  be  implanted  in  our  nature  by  God  himself.  The 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  39 

Again,  it  is  a  part  of  the  common  faith 
of  the  Church,  that  Jesus  Christ,  is  a  true 
and  proper  priest;  that  what  was  symboUcal 
and  figurative,  with  regard  to  other  priests, 
is  real  as  it  regards  him.  He  is  called  a 
priest ;  it  is  proved  that  he  has  all  the  quali- 
fications for  the  office,  that  he  was  divinely 
appointed,  that  he  performed  all  its  duties, 
secures  all  its  benefits,  and  that  his  priest- 
hood supersedes  all  others.  We  are  accord- 
ingly commanded  to  come  to  him  in  the  cha- 
racter of  a  priest,  to  commit  our  souls  into 
his  hands,  that  he  may  reconcile  us  to  God, 
and  make  intercession  for  us.  This  is  the 
scriptural  method  of  representing  the  manner 
in  which  Christ  saves  us,  and  the  nature  of 
his  work.  Dr.  Beman  in  his  chapter  on  the 
*^  Fact  of  the  Atonement,"  which  is  directed 

holiness  of  God,  which  reveals  itself  to  the  sinner  by  the 
connexion  between  suffering  and  transgression,  has  there- 
fore, a  witness  for  itself  in  every  human  breast.  Hence, 
on  the  one  hand,  the  proclamation  of  pardon  and  reconcilia- 
tion, could  not  satisfy  the  conscience  of  the  sinner,  unless 
his  guilt  had  been  atoned  for  by  punishment ;  and  on  the 
other  hand,  divine  love  could  not  offer  its  blessings  to  the 
sinner,  unless  holiness  was  revealed  together  with  love. 
It  was  therefore  necessary  that  suffering  commensurate 
with  the  apostasy  of  man  should  be  endured,  which  men 
would  impute  to  themselves  as  their  own.  Such  was  the 
suffering,  inward  and  outward,  of  the  Redeemer.  Two 
things  were  necessary,  1.  That  those  sufferings  should 
correspond  to  (entsprechen)  the  greatness  of  the  sin  of 
mankind.  2.  That  the  sinner  could  rightfully  impute 
them  to  himself" — Tholuck,  Beilage  II.  zum  Hebraer- 
brief,  p.  104.  There  is  more  real  and  precious  truth, 
according  to  our  judgment,  in  that  short  paragraph,  than 
in  all  Dr.  Beman's  book. 


40  EEVIEW  OF 

against  Socinians,  avails  himself  of  all  the 
usual  sources  of  scriptural  proof,  and  in  the  . 
course  of  the  chapter  is  forced  to  speak  of 
Christ  as  a  sacrifice  and  a  Priest.  But  when 
he  comes  to  the  exposition  of  his  views  of 
the  nature  of  the  atonement,  he  finds  it  expe- 
dient and  even  necessary,  to  leave  that  mode 
of  representation  entirely  out  of  view.  We 
hear  no  more  of  propitiating  God,  of  Christ 
as  a  sacrifice,  of  his  character  as  a  Priest.  It 
is  now  all  moral  government,  the  order  and 
interest  of  the  universe,  symbolical  teaching, 
exhibition  of  truth  and  motives.  Why  is  all 
this?  Why  does  not  Dr.  Beman's  doctrine 
admit  of  being  thrown  into  the  scriptural 
form?  Why  must  the  terms  sacrifice,  priest, 
propitiation,  be  discarded,  when  teaching  the 
nature  of  the  atonement  ?  For  the  very  ob- 
vious reason  that  there  is  an  entire  incon- 
gruity between  his  views  and  the  word  of 
God.  What  has  a  sacrifice  and  priest  to  do 
with  governmental  display?  This  fact  alone 
works  the  condemnation  of  Dr.  Beman's 
whole  theory.  His  plan  of  salvation,  his 
method  of  access  to  God,  is  irreconcilable 
with  that  presented  in  the  Scriptures.  There 
we  are  taught  that  as  the  Israelite  who  had 
offended,  came  to  the  priest,  who  made  an 
atonement  for  him  in  the  appointed  way, 
and  thus  reconciled  him  to  God;  so  the  peni- 
tent sinner,  must  come  to  Christ  as  his  High 
Priest,  who  satisfies  the  divine  justice  by  pre- 
senting his  own  merits  before  God,  and  who 
ever    lives  to  make  intercession  for    him. 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  41 

Would  this  representation  ever  lead  a  hu- 
man being  to  imagine,  that  Christ  merely 
makes  pardon  possible,  that  his  death  was  a 
symboUcal  lesson  to  the  universe  ?  Accord- 
ing to  Dr.  Beman's  theory,  Christ  is  not  a 
Priest.  We  are  under  no  necessity  of  recog- 
nizing him  as  such,  nor  of  committing  our- 
selves into  his  hands,  nor  of  relying  on  his 
merits  and  intercession.  A  mere  possibility 
of  salvation  for  all  men  is  all  that  Christ  has 
accomplished.  But  does  this  make  him  a 
High  Priest,  in  the  scriptural  and  universally 
received  sense  of  the  term? 

A  third  method  by  which  the  Scriptures 
teach  us  the  nature  of  the  atonement,  is  by 
express  declarations  concerning  the  nature  of 
his  sufferings,  or  the  immediate  design  of  his 
death.  It  is  expressly  taught  that  his  suffer- 
ings were  penal,  that  he  endured  the  penalty 
of  the  law,  and  that  he  thus  suffered  not  for 
himself  but  for  us.  This  is  a  point  about 
which  there  is  so  much  strange  misconcep- 
tion, that  it  is  necessary  to  explain  the  mean- 
ing of  the  terms  here  used.  The  sufferings 
of  rational  beings  are  either  calamities,  hav- 
ing no  reference  to  sin;  or  chastisement  de- 
signed for  the  improvement  of  the  sufferer ; 
or  penal  when  designed  for  the  satisfaction 
of  justice.  Now  what  is  meant  by  the  lan- 
guage above  used  is,  that  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  were  not  mere  calamities;  neither  were 
they  chastisements,  (in  the  sense  just  stated,) 
nor  were  they  simply  exemplary,  nor  merely 
symbolical,  designed  to  teach  this  or  that 


42  REVIEW  OF 

truth,  but  that  they  were  penal,  i.  e.  designed 
to  satisfy  divine  justice.  This  is  the  distinc- 
tive character  assigned  to  them  in  Scripture. 
Again,  by  the  penahy  of  the  law  is  meant, 
that  suffering  which  the  law  demands  as  a 
satisfaction  to  justice.  It  is  not  any  specific 
kind  or  degree  of  suffering,  for  it  varies  both 
as  to  degree  and  kind,  in  every  supposable 
case  of  its  infliction.  The  sufferings  of  no 
two  men  that  ever  lived,  are  precisely  alike, 
in  this  world  or  the  next,  unless  their  consti- 
tution, temperament,  sins,  feelings,  and  cir- 
cumstances were  precisely  alike,  which  is 
absolutely  incredible.  The  objection  there- 
fore started  by  Socinians,  that  Christ  did  not 
suffer  the  penalty  of  the  law,  because  he  did 
not  suffer  remorse,  despair,  or  eternal  banish- 
ment from  God,  was  answered,  by  contem- 
porary theologians,  by  denying  that  those 
things  entered  essentially  into  the  penalty  of 
the  law.  That  penalty  is  in  Scripture  called 
death,  which  includes  every  kind  of  evil 
inflicted  by  divine  justice  in  punishment  of 
sin;  and  inasmuch  as  Christ  suffered  such 
evil,  and  to  such  a  degree  as  fully  satisfied 
divine  justice,  he  suffered  what  the  Scriptures 
call  the  penalty  of  the  law.  It  is  not  the 
nature,  but  the  relation  of  sufferings  to  the 
law,  which  gives  them  their  distinctive  cha- 
racter. What  degree  of  suffering  the  law 
demands,  as  it  varies  in  every  specific  case, 
God  only  can  determine.  The  sufferings  of 
Christ  were  unutterably  great;  still  with  one 
voice,  Papists,  Lutherans,  and  Reformed,  re- 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  43 

butted  the  objection  of  Socinus,  that  the  tran- 
sient sufferings  of  one  man  could  not  be 
equivalent  to  the  sufferings  due  to  the  sins  of 
men,  by  referring,  not  to  the  degree  of  the 
Saviour's  anguish,  as  equal  to  the  misery 
due  to  all  for  whom  he  died,  but  to  the  infi- 
nite dignity  of  his  person.  It  was  the  Lord 
of  glory  who  was  crucified.  As  the  bodily 
sufferings  of  a  man  are  referred  to  his  whole 
person,  so  the  Scriptures  refer  the  sufferings 
of  Christ's  human  nature  to  his  whole  per- 
son. And  he  was  a  divine,  and  not  a  human 
person;  but  a  divine  person  with  a  human 
nature.  This  is  an  awful  subject,  on  which 
all  irreverent  speculation  must  be  very  offen- 
sive to  God.  Let  it  be  enough  to  say  with 
the  Scriptures  that  Christ  suffered  the  penalty 
of  the  law  in  our  stead,  and  that  the  penalty 
of  the  law  was  that  kind  and  amount  of  suf- 
fering, which  from  such  a  person,  was  a  full 
satisfaction  to  the  divine  justice.  All  that 
our  standards  say  on  this  point,  they  say 
wisely,  viz.  that  the  Saviour  endured  the 
miseries  of  this  hfe,  the  wrath  of  God,  the 
accursed  death  of  the  cross,  and  continued 
under  the  power  of  death  for  a  time.  This 
was  the  penalty  of  the  law;  for  the  wrath  of 
God,  however  expressed,  constitutes  that 
penalty,  in  the  strictest  and  highest  sense. 

That  the  Scriptures  do  teach  that  Christ's 
sufterings  were  penal,  has  already  been 
proved  from  those  passages  in  which  he  is 
said  to  bear  our  sins,  that  our  iniquities  were 
laid  upon  him,  that  he  suffered  the  chastise- 


44  REVIEW  OP 

ment  of  our  peace,  and  that  as  a  sacrifice  he 
endured  the  death  which  we  had  incurred. 
The  same  truth  is  expressed  still  more  ex- 
pHcitly  in  Gal.  iii.  13.  The  apostle  thus 
argues.  The  law  pronounces  accursed  all 
who  do  not  obey  every  command ;  no  man 
has  ever  rendered  this  perfect  obedience, 
therefore  all  men  are  under  the  curse ;  but 
Christ  has  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the 
law,  having  been  made  a  curse  for  us.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  what  the  apostle  means, 
when  he  says,  that  all  men  are  under  the 
curse;  nor  when  he  says,  cursed  is  everyone 
who  continueth  not  in  all  things  written  in 
the  law  to  do  them ;  neither  can  it  be  doubted 
what  he  means  when  he  says,  Christ  was 
made  a  curse.  The  three  expressions,  under 
the  curse,  accursed,  and  made  a  curse,  cannot 
mean  essentially  different  things.  If  the  for- 
mer mean  that  we  were  exposed  to  the  pen- 
alty, the  latter  must  mean  that  Christ  endured 
the  penalty.  He  hath  redeemed  us  from  the 
curse  by  bearing  it  in  our  stead.* 

To  the  same  effect  the  apostle  speaks  in 
Rom.  viii.  3.     What  the  law  could  not  do 

*  In  this  interpretation  every  modern  commentator  of 
whom  we  have  any  knowledge  concurs,  as  for  example 
Koppe,  Flatt,  Winer,  Usteri,  Matthies,  Rueckert,  De  Wette. 
What  the  apostle  adds  in  the  next  verse,  "  For  it  is  writ- 
ten, cursed  is  every  one  that  is  hung  upon  a  tree,"  is  evi- 
dently intended  to  justify  from  Scripture  the  use  of  the 
word  curse.  Those  publicly  exposed  as  suffering  the 
sentence  of  the  law,  are  called  cursed ;  hence  since  Christ, 
though  perfectly  holy,  did  bear  the  sentence  of  the  law, 
the  word  may  be  properly  applied  to  him. 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  45 

(i.  e.  effect  the  justification  of  men)  in  that  it 
was  weak  through  the  flesh,  that  God  did, 
having  sent  his  Son  in  the  Hkeness  of  sinful 
flesh,  and  for  sin,  or  as  a  sin-oflering,  he  con- 
demned, i.  e.  punished  sin,  in  the  flesh,  i.  e. 
in  him,  who  was  clothed  in  our  nature.  This 
passage  agrees,  as  to  the  principal  point,  with 
the  one  cited  from  Galatians.  The  sentence 
which  we  had  incurred  was  carried  into 
efl'ect  upon  the  Redeemer,  in  order  that  we 
might  be  delivered  from  the  law  under  which 
we  were  justly  condemned.  In  2  Cor.  v.  21, 
the  apostle  in  urging  men  to  be  reconciled  to 
God,  presents  the  nature  and  mode  of  the 
atonement,  as  the  ground  of  his  exhortation. 
"  For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who 
knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  become  the  right- 
eousness of  God  in  him."  The  only  sense 
in  which  Christ,  who  was  free  from  all  sin, 
could  be  made  sin,  was  by  having  our  sins 
laid  upon  him;  and  the  only  way  in  which  our 
sins  could  be  laid  upon  him,  was  by  his  so  as- 
suming our  place  as  to  endure, in  our  stead,the 
penalty  we  had  incurred.  "  God  made  him  to 
be  sin,"  says  De  Wette,  "  in  that  he  laid  on 
him  the  punishment  of  sin."  Here  again  we 
have  precisely  the  same  doctrine, taught  under 
all  the  other  forms  of  expression  already  con- 
sidered. Christ  was  made  sin,  as  we  in  him 
are  made  righteousness;  we  are  justified,  he 
was  condemned;  we  are  freed  from  the  pen- 
alty, he  endured  it;  he  was  treated  as  justice 
required  the  sinner  to  be  treated;  we  are 
treated  according  to  his  merits  and  not  our 
own  deserts. 


46  REVIEW  OF 

Fourthly,  there  are  various  other  forms 
under  which  the  Scriptures  set  forth  the  na- 
ture of  Christ's  death  which  the  limits  of  a 
review  forbid  our  considering.  He  has  re- 
deemed us;  he  has  purchased  us;  he  gave 
himself  as  a  ransom,  &c.  It  is  readily  admit- 
ted that  all  these  terms  are  often  used  in  a 
wide  sense,  to  express  the  general  idea  of 
deliverance  without  reference  to  the  mode  by 
which  that  deliverance  is  effected.  It  cannot 
however  be  denied  that  they  properly  ex- 
press deliverance  by  purchase,  i.  e.  by  the 
payment  of  what  is  considered  equivalent  to 
the  person  or  thing  redeemed.  In  the  Bible 
it  is  not  simply  said  that  Christ  has  delivered 
us;  nor  is  it  said  he  delivered  us  by  power, 
nor  by  teaching,  but  by  his  death,  by  his  own 
precious  blood,  by  giving  himself,  by  being 
made  a  curse  for  us.  Such  representations 
cannot  fail  to  convey  the  idea  of  a  redemp- 
tion in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  and 
therefore  teach  the  true  nature  of  the  atone- 
ment. We  are  redeemed;  that  which  was 
given  for  us  was  of  infinite  value. 

If  the  Scriptures  thus  teach  that  Christ 
saves  us  by  bearing  our  sins,  or  being  made 
a  sin-offering  in  our  place,  then  the  more 
general  expressions,  such  as  he  died  for  us, 
he  gave  himself  for  us,  we  are  saved  by  his 
death,  his  blood,  his  cross,  and  others  of  a 
similar  kind,  are  all  to  be  understood  in  ac- 
cordance with  those  more  explicit  statements. 
To  the  pious  reader  of  the  New  Testament, 
therefore,  the  precious  truth  that  Christ  died 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  47 

as  our  substitute,  enduring  in  his  own  per- 
son, the  death  which  we  had  incurred,  re- 
deeming us  from  the  curse  by  being  made  a 
curse  for  us,  meets  him  upon  almost  every 
page,  and  confirms  his  confidence  in  the  truth 
and  exalts  his  estimate  of  its  value,  by  this 
frequency  of  repetition  and  variety  of  state- 
ment. 

Fifth,  there  is  still  another  consideration  in 
proof  of  the  unscriptural  character  of  Dr. 
Beman's  theory,  which  is  too  important  to 
be  overlooked.  The  apostle  in  unfolding  the 
plan  of  redemption  proceeds  on  the  assump- 
tion that  men  are  under  a  law  or  covenant 
which  demands  perfect  obedience,  and  which 
threatens  death  in  case  of  transgression.  He 
then  shows  that  no  man,  whether  Jew  or 
Gentile,  can  fulfil  the  conditions  of  that  cove- 
nant, or  so  obey  the  law  as  to  claim  justifica- 
tion on  the  ground  of  his  own  righteousness. 
Still  as  this  law  is  perfectly  righteous,  it  can- 
not be  arbitrarily  set  aside.  What  then  was 
to  be  done  ?  What  hope  can  there  be  for  the 
salvatioQ  of  sinners  ?  The  apostle  answers 
by  saying,  that  what  the  law  could  not  do, 
(that  is,  save  men,)  God  has  accomplished 
by  the  mission  of  his  Son.  But  how  does 
the  Son  save  us  ?  This  is  the  very  question 
before  us.  It  relates  to  the  nature  of  the 
work  of  Christ,  which  Dr.  Beman  has  under- 
taken to  discuss.  Paul's  answer  to  that 
question  is,  that  Christ  saves  us  by  being 
made  under  the  law  and  fulfilling  all  its  de- 
mands.    He  fulfilled  all  righteousness,  he 


48  REVIEW  OP 

knew  no  sin,  he  was  holy,  harmless,  and  sepa- 
rate from  sinners.  He  bore  our  sins  in  his 
own  body  on  the  tree,  and  thus  endured  the 
death  which  the  law  threatened  against  sin. 
He  has  thus  redeemed  us  from  the  law;  that 
is,  we  are  no  longer  under  obligation  to  satis- 
fy, in  our  own  person,  its  demands,  in  order 
to  our  justification.  The  perfect  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  is  offered  as  the  ground  of  jus- 
tification, and  all  who  accept  of  that  right- 
eousness by  faith,  have  it  so  imputed  to  them, 
that  they  can  plead  it  as  their  own,  and  God 
has  promised  to  accept  it  to  their  salvation. 
We  can  hardly  persuade  ourselves  that  any 
ordinary  reader  of  the  Bible,  can  deny  that 
this  is  a  correct  representation  of  the  manner 
in  which  Paul  preached  the  gospel.  It  is  the 
burden  of  all  his  writings,  it  is  the  gospel 
itself  as  it  lay  in  his  mind,  and  as  he  present- 
ed it  to  others.  It  is  the  whole  subject  of  the 
first  eight  chapters  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans, and  of  all  the  doctrinal  part  of  his  Epis- 
tle to  the  Galatians.  In  the  former  of  these 
epistles,  he  shows  that  there  are  but  two 
methods  of  justification,  the  one  by  our  own 
righteousness  and  the  other  by  the  righteous- 
ness of  God.  Having  shown  that  no  man 
has  or  can  have  an  adequate  righteousness, 
of  his  own,  he  shows  that  the  gospel  reveals 
the  righteousness  of  God,  that  is,  the  right- 
eousness which  is  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ, 
and  which  is  upon  all  them  that  believe. 
This  righteousness  is  so  complete,  that  God 
is  just  in  justifying  those  who  liave  the  faith 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  49 

by  which  it  is  received  and  appropriated. 
He  afterwards  illustrates  this  great  doctrine 
of  imputed  righteousness,  by  a  reference  to 
the  case  of  Adam,  and  shows  that  as  on  the 
account  of  the  offence  of  one  man,  a  sentence 
of  condemnation  passed  on  all  men,  so  on 
account  of  the  righteousness  of  one  man,  the 
free  gift  of  justification  has  come  upon  all. 
As  by  the  disobedience  of  one  the  many  were 
made  sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of  one,  the 
many  are  made  righteous.  It  is  involved  in 
all  this,  that  we  are  no  longer  under  the  law, 
no  longer  subject  to  its  demand  of  a  per- 
fect personal  righteousness,  but  justified  by 
a  righteousness  which  satisfies  its  widest 
claims.  Hence  the  apostle  so  frequently 
asserts,  ye  are  not  under  the  law ;  ye  are  free 
from  the  law.  But  how?  not  by  abrogating 
the  law,  or  by  dispensing  with  its  righteous 
claims,  but  legally  as  a  woman  is  free  from 
her  husband,  not  by  deserting  him,  not  by 
repudiating  his  authority,  but  by  his  ceasing 
to  have  any  claim  to  her,  which  continues 
only  so  long  as  he  lives.  So  we  are  freed 
from  the  law  by  the  body  of  Christ,  i.  e.,  by 
his  death.  He  was  made  under  the  law  that  he 
might  redeem  them  who  were  under  the  law ; 
he  hath  redeemed  us  from  its  curse  by  being 
made  a  curse  for  us;  he  has  taken  away  the 
handwriting  which  was  against  us,  nailing  it 
to  the  cross.  There  is,  therefore,  now  no  con- 
demnation to  those  who  are  in  Christ  Jesus,. 
because  we  are  by  this  gospel  freed  from  the 


50  REVIEW    OF 

law  and  its  condemnation.  Hence  Paul 
teaches  that  if  righteousness,  (that  is,  what 
satisfies  the  demands  of  the  law)  could  have 
come  in  any  other  way,  Christ  is  dead  in 
vain.  How  exclusively  this  righteousness  of 
Christ  was  the  ground  of  the  apostle's  per- 
sonal confidence,  is  plain  from  his  pregnant 
declaration  to  the  Philippians,  that  he  count- 
ed all  things  but  dung,  that  he  might  win 
Christ,  and  be  found  in  him,  not  having  his 
own  righteousness,  but  that  which  is  through 
the  faith  of  Christ,  the  righteousness  which  is 
of  God  by  faith. 

With  this  representation  of  the  plan  of  sal- 
vation. Dr.  Beman's  theory  is  utterly  irrecon- 
cilable. According  to  his  theory,  the  demands 
of  the  law  have  not  been  satisfied.  "  The 
relation  of  the  sinner  to  the  curse  which  this 
law  pronounces  against  the  transgressor,  is 
legally — not  evangelically — just  the  same 
that  it  was  without  an  atonement."  ^'  The 
law  has  the  same  demand  upon  him,  and 
utters  the  same  denunciation  of  wrath  against 
him.  The  law,  or  justice,  that  is  distributive 
Histice,  as  expressed  in  the  law,  has  received 
no  satisfaction  at  all.'^  p.  133.  What  then 
has  Christ's  atonement  done  for  us?  He  has 
simply  opened  the  way  for  pardon.  "All 
that  the  atonement  has  done  for  the  sinner," 
says  Dr.  Beman,  "is  to  place  him  within  the 
reach  of  pardon."  p.  137.  "The  way  is  now 
open.  Mercy  can  now  operate.  The  door 
is  open."  p.  106.  The  atonement  "was  re- 
quired and  made  in  order  to  open  a  consist- 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  51 

ent  way  for  the  publication  of  pardon,  or  for 
the  exercise  of  grace  to  sinners."  p.  124. 

This  theory  directly  contradicts  the  apos- 
tle's doctrine,  1.  Because  he  teaches  that 
Christ  was  made  under  the  law  for  the  pur- 
pose of  redeeming  them  that  are  under  the 
law,  and  that  he  was  made  a  curse  for  us. 
We  are  therefore  delivered  from  the  law,  as 
a  covenant  of  works,  and  are  not  subject  to 
its  demands  and  its  curse  when  united  to  him. 
2.  Because  it  virtually  denies  that  Christ 
wrought  out  any  righteousness  which  is  the 
ground  of  our  justification.  He  merely  makes 
pardon  possible,  whereas  Paul  says  that  by 
his  obedience  we  are  made  righteous,  that 
we  become  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him. 
On  this  new  theory,  the  language  of  the 
apostle,  when  he  speaks  of  not  having  his 
own  righteousness,  but  the  righteousness 
which  is  by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  unintelli- 
gible. 3.  It  destroys  the  very  nature  of  justi- 
fication, which  is  "an  act  of  God's  free  grace, 
wherein  he  pardoneth  all  our  sins,  and  ac- 
cepteth  us  as  righteous  in  his  sight  only  for 
the  righteousness  of  Christ,  imputed  unto  us, 
and  received  by  faith  alone."  But  accord- 
ing to  this  theory,  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
justification:  we  are  merely  pardoned.  In 
Scripture,  however,  and  in  all  languages,  the 
ideas  of  pardon  and  justification  are  distinct 
and  in  a  measure  opposite.*     If  we  are  jus- 

*  "The  word  cT/xs^oDv,"  says  De  Wette,  "means  not 
merely  negatively  to  pardon;  but  also  affirmatively  to  de- 
dare  righteous^ 


52  REVIEW    OF 

tified,  we  are  declared  righteous.  That  is,  it 
is  declared  that,  as  concerns  us,  on  some 
ground  or  for  some  reason,  the  law  is  satis- 
fied; and  that  reason  Paul  says  must  either 
be  our  own  righteousness,  or  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ.  Dr.  Beman's  theory  admits 
of  no  such  idea  of  justification.  The  sinner 
is  merely  forgiven,  because  the  death  of 
Christ,  prevents  such  forgiveness  doing  any 
harm.  This  is  not  what  the  Bible  teaches, 
when  it  speaks  of  our  being  made  the  right- 
eousness of  God  in  Christ;  or  of  his  imputing 
righteousness  to  us;  or  of  our  receiving  the 
gift  of  righteousness.  This  is  not  what  the 
convinced  sinner  needs,  to  whom,  not  mere 
pardon,  but  justification,  on  the  ground  of  a 
righteousness,  which  though  not  his  own,  is 
his,  as  wrought  out  for  him  and  bestowed  by 
the  free  gift  of  God,  is  necessary  to  peace 
with  God.  Rom.  v.  1. 

4.  It  destroys  the  nature  of  justifying  faith 
and  deranges  the  whole  plan  of  salvation.  In 
accordance  with  the  Scriptures,  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ,  is,  in  our  standards,  declared  to  be  a 
saving  grace,  whereby  we  receive  and  rest 
upon  him  alone  for  salvation,  as  he  is  off'ered 
to  us  in  the  gospel.  This  is  perfectly  natural 
and  intelligible,  if  Christ  is  our  righteousness. 
If  his  work  of  obedience  and  death  is  the  sole 
ground  of  justification  before  God,  then  we 
imderstand  what  the  Bible  means  by  believ- 
ing upon  Christ,  putting  our  trust  in  him,  be- 
ing found  in  him;  then  the  phrase,  faith  of 
Christ,  which  so  often  occurs  as  expressing 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  53 

the  idea  of  a  faith  of  which  he  is  the  object, 
has  its  appropriate  meaning.  Then  too  we 
understand  what  is  meant  by  coming  to 
Christ,  receiving  Christ,  putting  on  Christ, 
being  in  Christ.  Upon  Dr.  Beman's  theory, 
however,  all  this  is  well  nigh  unintelligible. 
We  admit  that  a  vague  sense  may  be  put  on 
these  expressions  on  any  theory  of  the  atone- 
ment, even  that  of  the  Socinians.  If  the 
death  of  Christ  is  necessary  to  salvation, 
either,  as  they  say,  by  revealing  the  love  of 
God,  or  as  Dr.  Beman  says,  by  revealing  his 
regard  for  law,  then  to  believe  in  Christ,  or 
to  receive  Christ,  might  be  said  to  mean,  to 
believe  the  truth  that  without  the  revelation 
made  by  his  death,  God  would  not  forgive 
sin.  But  how  far  is  this  from  being  the  full 
and  natural  import  of  the  terms !  Who  would 
ever  express  mere  acquiescence  in  the  fact 
that  Christ  has  made  salvation  possible,  by 
saying,  "  I  would  be  found  in  him  not  having 
mine  own  righteousness,  but  the  righteous- 
ness which  is  by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ.?"  The 
fact  is  the  Socinian  view  is  in  some  respects 
much  easier  reconciled  with  Scripture  than 
that  of  Dr.  Beman.  The  passage  just  quoted, 
for  example,  might  have  this  meaning,  viz. 
we  must  have,  not  the  moral  excellence 
which  the  law  can  give,  but  that  inward 
righteousness  of  which  faith  in  Christ  is  the 
source.  This  would  have  some  plausibility, 
but  what  "  the  righteousness  which  is  by 
faith  of  Jesus  Christ'^  can  mean,  as  opposed 


54  REVIEW  OP 

to  our  own  righteousness,  on  Dr.  Beman's 
ground,  it  is  hard  to  conceive. 

Again,  according  to  the  Bible  and  the 
common  doctrine  of  the  Church,  when  a  sin- 
ner is  convinced  of  his  sin  and  misery,  of  his 
entire  unworthiness  in  the  sight  of  God,  he  is 
to  be  directed  to  renounce  all  dependence 
upon  himself  and  to  believe  in  Christ,  that  is, 
to  place  all  his  confidence  in  him.  But  if 
Christ  has  only  made  salvation  possible,  if 
he  has  merely  brought  the  sinner  within  the 
reach  of  mercy,  this  is  a  most  unnatural 
direction.  What  has  the  sinner  to  come  to 
Christ  for?  Why  should  he  be  directed  to 
receive  or  submit  to  the  righteousness  of 
God?  Christ  has  nothing  to  do  for  him. 
He  has  made  salvation  possible,  and  his 
work  is  done;  what  the  sinner  has  to  do  is  to 
submit  to  God.  The  way  is  open,  let  him 
lay  aside  his  rebellion,  and  begin  to  love  and 
serve  his  Maker.  Such  are  the  directions, 
which  this  theory  would  lead  its  advocates 
to  give  to  those  who  are  convinced  of  their 
sin  and  danger.  This  is  not  a  mere  imagi- 
nation, such  are  the  directions,  commonly 
and  characteristically  given  by  those  who 
adopt  Dr.  Beman's  view  of  the  atonement. 
Christ  disappears  in  a  great  measure  from 
his  own  gospel.  You  may  take  up  volume 
after  volume  of  their  sermons,  and  you  will 
find  excellent  discourses  upon  sin,  obligation, 
moral  government,  regeneration,  divine  sove- 
reignty, &c.,  but  the  cross  is  comparatively 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  55 

kept  out  of  view.  Christ  has  no  immediate 
work  in  the  sinner's  salvation ;  and  accord- 
inglv  the  common  directions  to  those  who 
ask,  what  they  must  do  to  be  saved,  is,  sub- 
mit to  God,  choose  him  and  his  service,  or 
something  of  similar  import.  To  such  an  ex- 
treme has  this  been  carried,  by  some  whose 
logical  consistency  has  overcome  the  influ- 
ence of  scriptural  language  and  traditionary 
instruction,  that  they  have  not  hesitated  to 
say  that  the  command.  Believe  in  Christ,  is 
obsolete.  It  was  the  proper  test  of  submis- 
sion in  the  apostolic  age,  but  in  our  day, 
when  all  men  recognize  Christ  as  the  Mes- 
siah, it  is  altogether  inappropriate.  We 
doubt  not  that  thousands  who  agree  sub- 
stantially with  Dr.  Beman,  would  be  shocked 
at  this  language  ;  nevertheless  it  is  the  legiti- 
mate consequence  of  his  theory.  If  the 
atonement  is  a  mere  governmental  display, 
a  mere  symbolical  method  of  instruction, 
then  the  command  to  believe  in  Christ,  to 
come  to  him,  to  trust  in  him  and  his  right- 
eousness, is  not  the  language  in  which  sin- 
ners should  be  addressed.  It  does  not  inform 
them  of  the  specific  thing  which  they  must 
do  in  order  to  be  saved.  Christ  has  opened 
the  door,  their  business  is  now  immediately 
with  God. 

Again,  can  any  reader  of  the  Bible,  can 
any  Christian  at  least,  doubt  that  union  with 
Christ,  was  to  the  apostles  one  of  the  most 
important  and  dearest  of  all  the  doctrines  of 
the  gospel ;  a  doctrine  which  lay  at  the  root 


56  REVIEW    OF 

of  all  the  other  doctrines  of  redemption,  the 
foundation  of  their  hopes,  the  source  of  their 
spiritual  life.  But  according  to  the  theory 
that  Christ's  death  is  a  mere  symbolical  me- 
thod of  instruction,  an  expression  of  a  great 
truth,  that  it  merely  opens  the  way  for  mer- 
cy, what  can  union  with  Christ  mean?  In 
what  sense  are  we  in  him?  how  are  we  his 
members  ?  How  is  it  that  we  die,  that  we 
live,  that  we  are  to  rise  from  the  dead  in  vir- 
tue of  that  union?  What  is  meant  by  living 
by  faith,  of  which  he  is  the  object?  The  fact 
is  this  theory  changes  the  whole  nature  of 
the  gospel;  every  thing  is  altered;  the  nature 
of  faith,  the  nature  of  justification,  the  mode 
of  access  to  God,  our  relation  to  Christ,  the 
inward  exercises  of  communion  with  him,  so 
that  the  Christian  feels  disposed  to  say  with 
Mary,  They  have  taken  away  my  Lord,  and 
I  know  not  where  they  have  laid  him. 

We  do  not  believe  there  is  truth  enough 
in  this  theory  to  sustain  the  life  of  religion  in 
any  man's  heart.  We  have  no  idea  that  Dr. 
Beman,  Dr.  Cox,  or  any  good  man  really 
lives  by  it.  The  truth,  as  it  is  practically 
embraced  and  appropriated  by  the  soul  under 
the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  truth 
in  the  form  in  which  it  is  presented  in  the 
Bible,  and  not  as  expressed  in  abstract  pro- 
positions. It  is  therefore  very  possible  for  a 
man,  to  adopt  theoretically  such  an  abstract 
statement  of  a  scriptural  doctrine,  as  really 
denies  its  nature  and  destroys  its  power,  and 
yet  that  same  man  may  receive  the  truth  for 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  57 

his  own  salvation  as  it  is  revealed  in  the 
Bible.  We  see  daily  instances  of  this  in  the 
case  of  Arminians,  who  professedly  reject 
doctrines,  which  are  really  included  in  every 
prayer  they  utter.  In  like  manner  we  believe 
that  many  who  profess  to  adopt  the  theory, 
that  the  death  of  Christ  merely  opens  the 
way  for  mercy,  that  it  is  only  the  symbolical 
expression  of  a  moral  truth,  deny  that  theory 
in  every  act  of  faith  they  exercise  in  Jesus 
Christ.  Still  the  theory  is  none  the  less  false 
and  dangerous.  It  has  its  effect,  and  just  so 
far  as  it  operates,  it  tends  to  destroy  all  true 
religion.  Its  tendency,  especially  in  private 
Christians,  is  counteracted  by  reading  the 
Scriptures  and  by  the  teaching  of  the  Spirit. 
But  the  evil  of  the  constant  inculcation  of 
error  and  misrepresentation  of  truth,  cannot 
easily  be  exaggerated.  The  particular  error 
concerning  the  nature  of  the  atonement  incul- 
cated in  this  book,  has,  we  believe,  done 
more  to  corrupt  religion,  and  to  promote  So- 
cinianism,  than  any  other  of  the  vaunted 
improvements  of  American  theology,  which, 
after  all,  are  but  feeble  re-productions  of  the 
rejected  errors  of  the  sixteenth  and  seven- 
teenth centnries. 

The  doctrine  of  atonement  for  which  we 
contend  as  the  distinguishing  and  essential 
doctrine  of  the  gospel,  is,  I.  That  sin  for  its 
own  sake  deserves  the  wrath  and  curse  of 
God.  2.  That  God  is  just,  immutably  deter- 
mined, from  the  excellence  of  his  nature,  to 
punish  sin.    3.  That  out  of  his  sovereign  and 


58  REVIEW    OF 

infinite  love,  in  order  to  redeem  us  from  the 
law,  that  is,  from  its  demands  and  curse,  he 
sent  his  own  Son,  in  the  likeness  of  sinful 
flesh,  who  in  his  own  person  fulfilled  those 
demands,  and  endured  that  curse  in  our  stead. 
4.  That  his  righteousness,  or  merit,  thus 
wrought  out,  is  imputed  to  every  one  that 
believes,  to  his  justification  before  God.  This 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  church  catholic,  over- 
laid, corrupted,  and  made  of  none  eff'ect,  in 
the  church  of  Rome;  disembarrassed,  repro- 
duced, and  exhibited  as  the  doctrine  of  the 
Reformation;  in  manifold  forms  since  op- 
posed or  rejected,  but  ever  virtually  embra- 
ced and  trusted  in  by  every  sincere  child  of 
God. 

What  then  are  the  objections  to  this  great 
doctrine?  The  first  objection  urged  by  Dr. 
Beman  is,  that  it  involves  "a  transfer  of  mo- 
ral character  between  Christ  and  those  for 
whom  he  died.  Christ  could  not  be  punished 
on  legal  principles,  until  he  was  guilty  in  the 
eye  of  the  law;  and  his  people  could  not  be 
justified  on  legal  principles,  till  its  penalty 
was  literally  inflicted.  This  transfer  of  cha- 
racter so  as  to  render  Jesus  Christ  the  sinner, 
and  the  soul  for  whom  he  died,  innocent, 
appears  to  us  without  foundation  in  reason 
and  Scripture."  The  objection  then  is,  that 
the  doctrine  that  Christ  endured  the  punish- 
ment of  our  sins,  and  that  we  are  justified  by 
the  imputation  of  his  righteousness,  involves 
such  a  transfer  of  moral  character  as  to  ren- 
der Jesus  Christ  a  sinner,  and  those  for  whom 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  59 

he  died  innocent!  This  objection  is  directed 
not  against  this  or  that  individual  writer,  but 
against  whole  bodies  and  classes  of  men,  for 
Dr.  Beman  over  and  over  asserts  that  there 
are  but  two  views  of  the  atonement,  the  one 
against  which  he  brings  this  and  other  objec- 
tions, and  his  own  governmental  theory.  We 
have  ah'eady  shown  that  the  former  is  the 
common  doctrine  of  all  the  churches  of  the 
Reformation.  It  is  against  them  therefore, 
this  objection  is  brought.  Our  first  remark 
on  it  is,  that  it  is  the  old,  often  repeated,  and 
often  refuted  slander  of  Socinians  and  Papists, 
the  latter  corrupting  and  denying  the  doc- 
trine of  their  own  church.  Our  second  re- 
mark is,  that  it  is  a  gross,  shocking,  and,  we 
are  constrained  in  conscience  to  add,  wicked 
misrepresentation.  Dr.  Beman  betrays  his 
want  of  faith  in  the  truth  of  the  accusation, 
though  he  makes  it  against  hundreds  and 
thousands  of  his  brethren,  by  saying  that  a 
doctrine  which  represents  Jesus  Christ  as  a 
sinner,  "appears  to  us  without  foundation 
in  reason  and  Scripture." !  Shocking  blas- 
phemy appears  to  us  without  foundation! 
What  man  who  believed  what  he  said  could 
utter  such  language?  Is  this  the  way  in 
which  a  doctrine  which  represents  the  Son  of 
God  a  sinner,  is  to  be  spoken  of?  No,  Dr. 
Beman  knew  full  well,  that  the  doctrine  he 
writes  against,  includes  no  such  blasphemy. 
He  cannot  be  so  grossly  ignorant  as  not  to 
know  that  the  distinction  between  the  impu- 
tation and  the  infusion  of  sin  and  righteous- 


60  REVIEW    OP 

ness,  is  one  for  which  the  churches  of  the 
Reformation  contended  as  for  their  life;  and 
that  the  distinction  is  plain,  intelligible,  scrip- 
tural, and  unavoidable; — one  which  he  and 
all  other  men  do  make,  and  must  make. 
When  the  prophet  says,  "  The  son  shall  not 
bear  the  iniquity  of  the  father,"  does  Dr.  Be- 
man  pretend  to  believe,  that  he  means  that 
the  moral  character  of  the  father  shall  not  be 
transferred  to  the  son?  that  the  sin  of  the  one 
shall  not  be  infused  into  the  other?  Why  then 
does  he  pretend  to  believe  (for  we  hope  it  is 
mere  pretence)  that  when  we  say,  our  sins 
were  laid  on  Christ,  we  teach  that  our  moral 
character  was  so  transferred  to  him  as  to 
render  him  a  sinner?  Our  third  remark  is, 
that  the  objection  is  glaringly  unjust.  We 
say  in  the  very  language  of  Scripture  that 
Christ  bore  our  sins.  We  tell  in  what  sense 
we  understand  that  language,  viz.  that  it 
means,  not  that  Christ  was  rendered  in  moral 
character  a  sinner,  which  is  blasphemy,  but 
that  he  bore  the  punishment  of  our  sins, 
which  is  the  universally  admitted  meaning  of 
the  scriptural  phrase.  We  say  further,  that 
by  punishment  we  mean  sufferings  judicially 
inflicted  as  a  satisfaction  to  justice.  These 
things  are  so  plain,  they  have  been  so  often 
repeated,  they  so  evidently  do  not  involve 
the  shocking  doctrine  charged  on  those  who 
use  this  language,  that  we  can  have  little 
respect  for  the  man,  who  can  gravely,  and 
tamely  repeat  the  charge,  to  the  prejudice  of 
the  truth,  and  to  the  wounding  of  his  bre- 
thren. 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  61 

Dr.  Beman's  second  objection  is,  that  the 
system  he  opposes  destroys  "  all  mercy  in 
God  the  Father,  in  the  salvation  of  sinners, 
because  it  represents  God  as  totally  disin- 
clined to  the  exercise  of  compassion,  till  every 
jot  and  tittle  of  the  legal  curse  was  inflicted. 
On  the  same  principle  grace  or  pardon  in  the 
release  of  the  sinner  from  future  punishment, 
would  be  out  of  the  question;  for  what  grace 
or  pardon,  or  favour,  can  there  be  in  the  dis- 
charge of  a  debtor  whose  demand  (debt?)  has 
been  cancelled  to  the  uttermost  farthing?" 
p.  122.  This  objection  is  the  staple  of  his 
book.  On  p.  100  he  represents  us  as  teach- 
ing that  "  the  Son  of  God  endured  the  exact 
amount  of  suftering  due  on  legal  principles, 
to  sinners.'^  On  p.  107  he  says,  "The  amount 
of  Christ's  sufferings  must  consequently  be 
the  same  as  the  aggregate  suff'erings  included 
in  the  eternal  condemnation  of  all  those  who 
are  saved  by  his  merit.  .  .  .  The  agonies 
which  he  suffered  were  equal  to  the  endless 
misery  of  all  those  who  will  be  saved  by  his 
interposition  in  their  behalf.'^  On  p.  146,  he 
says,  "If  one  soul  were  to  be  saved  by  the 
atonement,  Christ  must  sustain  an  amount  of 
suff"ering  equal  to  that  involved  in  the  eternal 
condemnation  of  that  one  soul;  and  if  a  thou- 
sand were  to  be  saved,  a  thousand  times  that 
amount,  and  in  the  same  proportion  for  any 
greater  number  who  are  to  be  rescued  from 
perdition  and  exalted  to  glory.  To  this 
scheme  there  are  insurmountable  objections.'^ 
True  enough,  but  who  hold  that  scheme? 


62  REVIEW    OF 

Dr.  Beman  attributes  it  to  all  who  believe  in 
the  atonement,  and  do  not  adopt  his  scheme, 
for  he  says  there  are  but  two.  This  doctrine 
that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  amounted  to  the 
aggregate  sufferings  of  those  who  are  to  be 
saved,  that  he  endured  just  so  much  for  so 
many,  is  not  found  in  any  confession  of  the 
Protestant  churches,  nor  in  the  writings  of 
any  standard  theologian,  nor  in  the  recog- 
nized authorities  of  any  church  of  which  we 
have  any  knowledge.  The  whole  objection 
is  a  gross  and  inexcusable  misrepresentation* 
In  a  more  moderate  form  it  was  brought  for- 
ward by  the  Socinians,  and  repelled  by  the 
writers  of  that  and  subsequent  ages.  De 
Moor  is  generally  recognized  as  the  theolo- 
gian of  most  authority  among  the  churches 
of  Holland,  and  Turrettin  is  admitted  to  be 
one  of  the  strictest  of  the  Geneva  school,  and 
they  both  answer  this  calumny,  by  denying 
thai  according  to  their  doctrine,  there  is  any 
necessity  for  the  assumption  that  Christ^s 
sufferings  were  equal  to  the  sufferings  of  all 
his  people.  Thus  Turrettin,  after  quoting  at 
length  the  objection  from  Socinus,  answers 
it,  first,  by  showing  that  the  Scriptures  teach 
that  the  one  death  of  Christ  was  a  satisfac- 
tion for  all;  that  as  by  the  one  sin  of  Adam, 
many  were  made  sinners,  so  by  the  righteous- 

*  There  was  a  little  anonymous  work  called  Gethse- 
mane,  republished  some  years  ago  in  this  country,  which 
taught  this  quid  pro  quo  system  of  the  atonement.  But 
we  do  not  know  a  single  man,  now  of  our  church,  who 
adopted  the  sentiments  of  that  work. 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  63 

ness  of  Christ,  many  are  made  righteous. 
2.  By  insisting  on  the  distinction  between 
pecuniary  and  penal  satisfaction.  A  piece 
of  money  in  the  hand  of  a  king  is  of  no  more 
value,  than  in  the  hands  of  a  peasant,  but 
the  life  of  a  king  is  of  more  value  than  that 
of  a  peasant,  and  one  commander  is  often 
exchanged  for  many  soldiers.  3.  He  says 
the  adversaries  forget  that  Christ  is  God,  and 
therefore,  though  his  sufferings  coiild  not  be 
infinite  as  they  were  endured  by  his  finite 
nature,  they  were  of  infinite  value  in  virtue 
of  the  infinite  dignity  of  his  person.  Sin,  he 
says,  is  an  infinite  evil,  because  committed 
against  an  infinite  God,  though  the  act  of  a 
finite  nature.  So  the  suiferings  of  Christ, 
though  endured  in  his  human  nature,  are  of 
infinite  value  from  the  dignity  of  his  person.* 
Dr.  Beman,  under  this  head,  frequently 
objects  that  we  degrade  the  atonement  into 
a  mere  commercial  transaction,  a  payment  of 
a  debt,  which,  from  the  nature  of  the  case 
excludes  the  idea  of  free  remission.  Our 
first  remark  on  this  objection  is,  that  the 
Scriptures  use  this  same  figure,  and  therefore 
it  is  right  it  should  be  used.  When  it  is  said, 
Christ  purchased  the  church  with  his  own 
blood,  that  we  are  redeemed  not  with  cor- 
ruptible things  as  silver  and  gold,  but  with 
the  precious  blood  of  Christ,  such  language 
means  something.     In  every  metaphor  there 

*  See  in  the  fourth  vol.  of  his  works,  the  treatise  De 
Satisfactione  Christi,  p.  289.  The  same  answer  to  the 
same  objection  may  be  seen  in  De  Moor,  vol.  iii.  p.  1030. 


64  REVIEW    OF 

is  a  point  of  comparison ;  the  essential  idea 
involved  in  the  figure,  must  be  found  in  the 
subject  to  be  ilkistrated.  To  purchase  is  to 
acquire,  and  to  acquire,  by  giving  or  doing 
something  which  secures  a  title  to  the  thing 
acquired.  When  it  is  said  that  Christ  pur- 
chased the  church,  it  is  certainly  meant  that 
he  acquired  it,  that  it  is  his,  and  that  by  his 
death  he  has  secured  a  title  to  it,  founded  in 
the  justice  and  promise  of  God.  This  does 
not  make  redemption  a  commercial  transac- 
tion, nor  imply  that  there  are  not  essential 
points  of  divershy  between  acquiring  by 
money,  and  acquiring  by  blood.  Hence  our 
second  remark  is,  that  if  Dr.  Beman  will  take 
up  any  elementary  work  on  theology,  he 
will  find  the  distinction  between  pecuniary 
and  penal  satisfaction  clearly  pointed  out, 
and  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  shown  to  be  of 
the  latter,  and  not  of  the  former  kind.  1.  In 
the  one,  the  demand  is  upon  the  thing  due, 
in  the  other  case  it  is  upon  the  person  of  the 
criminal.  Hence,  2.  The  creditor  is  bound 
to  accept  the  payment  of  the  debt  no  matter 
when  or  by  whom  offered;  whereas  in  the 
case  of  a  crime  or  sin,  the  sovereign  is  bound 
neither  to  provide  a  substitute  nor  to  accept 
of  one  when  offered.  If  he  does  either,  it  is  a 
matter  of  grace.  3.  Hence  penal  satisfaction 
does  not  ipso  facto  liberate,  the  acceptance 
is  a  matter  of  arrangement  or  covenant,  and 
the  terms  of  that  covenant  must  depend  on 
the  will  of  the  parties.  Dr.  Beman  lapsed 
into  an  important  truth,  when  he  said  "Christ 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  65 

suffered  by  covenant,"  p.  98.  What  that 
covenant  is,  we  learn  from  Scripture,  and 
from  the  manner  in  which  it  is  executed. 
The  Bible  teaches  that,  agreeably  to  that 
covenant,  the  merits  of  Christ  do  not  avail 
to  the  benefit  of  his  people  immediately;  his 
children  remain  under  condemnation  as  well 
as  others  until  they  believe;  and  when  they 
do  believe,  they  receive  but  the  first  fruits  of 
their  inheritance,  they  are  but  imperfectly 
sanctified,  and  are  still  subject  to  many  evils, 
but  being  in  a  justified  state,  their  sufferings 
are  chastisements  and  not  punishments,  that 
is,  they  are  designed  for  their  own  improve- 
ment, and  not  to  satisfy  justice. 

The  satisfaction  of  Christ  therefore  being 
for  sin  and  by  suffering,  is  expressly  and  for- 
mally declared  not  to  be  of  the  nature  of 
pecuniary  satisfaction.  The  grace  of  the 
gospel  is  thereby  not  obscured  but  rendered 
the  more  conspicuous.  God  is  not  rendered 
merciful  by  the  atonement,  (as  we  be  slan- 
derously reported,  as  some  affirm  that  we 
say);  on  the  contrary,  the  atonement  flows 
from  his  infinite  love.  Dr.  Beman  writes  as 
a  Tritheist,  or  as  against  Tritheists,  when  he 
speaks  of  the  work  of  the  Son  rendering  the 
Father  gracious,  and  attributes  that  represen- 
tation to  us.  The  Lord  our  God  is  one  God. 
It  was  his  infinite  love  devised  the  plan  of 
redemption,  and  it  was  so  devised,  that  the 
exercise  of  love  should  be  perfectly  consistent 
with  holiness,  in  order  that  God  might  be 
just  in  justifying  sinners.  Surely  then  our 
r 


66  REVIEW    OP 

doctrine  does  not  obscure  the  grace  of  the 
gospel,  at  least  as  to  the  origin  of  the  plan  of 
mercy.  But  it  is  farther  objected  that  if 
Christ  rendered  a  complete  satisfaction  to 
divine  justice,  then  pardon  becomes  a  matter 
of  justice  and  not  of  grace.  Justice  to  whom? 
certainly  not  to  the  ungodly,  the  unright- 
eous, the  utterly  undeserving,  and  hell-de- 
serving sinner.  If  Christ  suffered  by  cove- 
nant, and  fulfilled  all  the  conditions  of  that 
covenant,  then  he  acquired  a  right  to  its  pro- 
mises. If  he  purchased  his  church  he  has  a 
right  to  it.  If  it  was  promised  that  for  his 
obedience  to  death,  he  should  see  of  the  tra- 
vail of  his  soul  and  be  satisfied,  then  he, 
having  done  all  that  was  required  of  him, 
has  a  right  to  the  promised  reward.  But 
what  right  have  we?  None  in  the  world; 
we  are  poor,  and  blind,  and  miserable,  hav- 
ing nothing,  meriting  nothing,  our  only  hope 
is  that  we  shall  be  treated,  not  according  to 
our  deserts,  but  according  to  the  merits  of 
another. 

The  objection  sounds  strange  to  our  ears, 
coming  from  such  a  quarter,  that  we  destroy 
the  grace  of  the  gospel.  What  is  salvation 
by  grace,  if  it  is  not  that  God  of  his  mere 
good  pleasure  provided  redemption,  that  he 
determines  of  his  own  will  who  shall  be  par- 
takers of  its  benefits;  that  those  who  are 
brought  to  repentance  and  faith,  are  not  only 
justified  avowedly  on  the  ground  of  a  right- 
eousness which  is  not  their  own,  but  are 
made  to  feel  and  acknowledge,  as  the  very 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  67 

condition  of  their  acceptance,  their  own 
ill-desert  and  misery,  and  not  only  owe 
every  thing  to  Christ,  but  possess  every  thing 
simply  in  virtue  of  their  union  with  him, 
which  union  is  kept  up  only  by  a  self-re- 
nouncing, self-emptying  faith?  The  feeblest 
infant  resting  on  its  mother's  bosom,  a  new 
born  lamb  carried  in  the  shepherd's  arms, 
might  with  as  much  plausibility  be  suspected 
of  doubting  the  love  that  sustains  them,  as 
the  believer  in  Christ's  having  purchased  the 
church  with  his  own  blood,  of  doubting  the 
entire  gratuitousness  of  his  own  salvation. 

It  would  be  easy  to  retort,  and  show  that 
it  is  Dr.  Beman's  doctrine  that  destroys  the 
grace  of  salvation.  If  Christ  only  makes  par- 
don possible,  if  the  possibility  of  forgiveness 
is  all  we  owe  to  him,  to  whom  or  what  do 
we  owe  heaven?  Is  it  to  ourselves  as  some 
of  the  advocates  of  his  doctrine  teach?  This 
is  the  natural  answer.  Christ  having  made 
pardon  possible,  then  God  deals  with  men 
according  to  their  works.  Whatever  answer 
Dr.  Beman  himself  would  give  to  the  above 
question,  it  must  from  the  nature  of  his  sys- 
tem, be  tame  compared  with  the  answer, 
which  flows  from  the  doctrine  that  we  owe 
the  blessed  Redeemer,  not  the  possibility  of 
pardon  merely,  but  justification,  adoption, 
sanctification,  the  resurrection  of  the  body 
and  life  everlasting.  These  things,  and  all 
the  blessedness  they  include  or  suppose,  are 
not  merely  rendered  possible,  but  actually 
secured  and  given  for  Christ's  sake  alone; 


68  REVIEW    OF 

and  hence  the  spirits  of  the  just  made  perfect, 
whose  robes  have  been  washed  and  made 
white  in  the  blood  of  the  lamb,  would  drown, 
in  their  thanksgiving  to  him  that  has  cleansed 
them  from  all  sin,  the  whispered  acknow- 
ledgments of  those  who  have  nothing  for 
which  to  give  thanks  but  the  possibility  of 
pardon. 

These  objections  which  Dr.  Beman  urges 
in  various  forms  throughout  his  book,  are  all 
old,  and  have  been  answered  a  hundred 
times.  There  is  indeed  one  objection  which 
is  certainly  American.  It  seems  there  was 
no  economy  in  the  atonement.  It  saved  no- 
thing and  gained  nothing.  The  atonement 
it  is  said  is  "  the  grand  device  of  heaven  for 
preventing  misery  and  promoting  happi- 
ness." p.  108.  And  it  is  triumphantly  urged, 
(through  some  eight  pages,)  that  if  Christ 
suffered  as  much  as  the  redeemed  would 
have  endured  there  is  no  gain  of  happiness. 
It  is  "a  mere  quid-jwo-quo  transaction."  p. 
111.  We  have  already  shown  that  no 
church,  or  class  of  men  hold  that  the  blessed 
Redeemer  endured  as  much  suffering  as  the 
redeemed  would  have  endured.  It  is  a  mere 
misrepresentation.  But  dismissing  that  point, 
the  objection  itself  is  unworthy  of  a  being, 
gifted  with  a  moral  sense.  Would  it  be  no- 
thing that  unnumbered  millions  are  saved 
from  sin  and  made  perfect  in  holiness?  Sup- 
posing there  was  no  absolute  gain  as  to  the 
amount  of  misery  prevented,  that  Christ  had 
in  a  few  years  suffered  all  that  finite  beings 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  69 

through  eternity  could  endure,  still  would  the 
vast  accession  to  the  holy  inhabitants  of  hea- 
ven be  nothing?  Does  not  the  Bible  say  that 
he  gave  himself  for  his  church,  to  purify  and 
cleanse  it?  that  the  promotion  of  holiness 
was  the  design  of  his  death?  Has  it  come  to 
this,  that  the  theory  which  makes  happiness 
the  end  of  the  creation,  must  represent  holi- 
ness as  nothing,  not  worth  giving  thanks  for, 
if  gained  at  the  least  expense  of  happiness  ? 
This  gross,  epicurean  view  of  the  sublime 
and  awful  mystery  of  redemption,  is  a  dis- 
grace to  the  age  and  country  that  gave  it 
birth. 

We  have  thus  endeavored  to  show  that  the 
theory  of  atonement  advocated  by  Dr.  Be- 
man,  is  founded  on  the  false  assumption  that 
the  punishment  of  sin  is  for  the  prevention  of 
crime,  and  not  on  account  of  its  own  intrinsic 
ill-desert ;  that  it  of  necessity  involves  a  de- 
nial of  the  justice  of  God,  and  makes  mere 
happiness  the  end  of  creation ;  that  it  is  des- 
titute of  any  semblance  or  pretence  of  sup- 
port from  the  Scriptures;  that  it  is  just  as 
arbitrary,  and  as  much  a  philosophical  specu- 
lation as  the  Socinian  theory,  the  latter  assert- 
ing that  the  design  of  Christ's  death  was  to 
display  the  love  of  God,  and  thus  lead  men  to 
repentance ;  and  the  former,  that  it  was  in- 
tended to  express  his  regard  for  his  law,  and 
thus  act  as  a  motive  to  obedience.  We  further 
endeavoured  to  prove  that  the  theory  is  in 
direct  conflict  with  the  Bible.  The  Scriptures 
teach  in  every  possible  way,  that  as  man  was 


70  REVIEW   OP 

under  a  law  or  covenant  which  requires  per- 
fect obedience  and  threatens  death  in  case  of 
trangression,  the  Son  of  God  was  born  of  a 
woman  and  made  under  that  law,  fulfilhng 
its  conditions  of  perfect  obedience  and  sustain- 
ing its  curse  for  man's  redemption.  And  that 
his  righteousness  is  freely  imputed  to  all  those 
who  receive  and  rest  upon  it  by  faith.  In 
denying  this  doctrine,  which  is  the  common 
faith  of  Christendom,  Dr.  Beman's  theory  in- 
volves the  denial  of  justification,  reducing  it 
to  mere  pardon  ;  destroys  the  true  doctrine  of 
justifying  faith ;  overlooks  the  union  between 
Christ  and  his  people  ;  tends  to  banish  Christ 
from  view,  and  to  vitiate  the  very  source  of 
all  evangeUcal  religion. 

We  showed  that  his  objections  to  this  doc- 
trine, with  one  melancholy  exception,  were 
the  oft  repeated  and  oft  refuted  calumnies  of 
Socinians ;  that  the  common  doctrine  does  not 
involve  the  transfer  of  moral  character  or  re- 
present Christ  as  a  sinner ;  that  so  far  from 
obscuring  the  grace  of  the  gospel,  or  teaching 
that  the  atonement  is  the  cause  of  the  love  of 
God,  it  represents  it  as  flowing  from  that  love, 
and  presents  in  the  clearest  possible  light  the 
gratuitous  nature  of  salvation.  It  is  of  grace 
that  a  Saviour  was  provided ;  of  grace  that 
the  benefits  of  his  death  are  conferred  on  one 
rather  than  another.  And  though  we  rejoice 
to  know  that  he  has  acquired  a  right  to  his 
church,  having  bought  it  with  his  own  blood, 
yet  his  people  know,  feel,  and  acknowledge 
that  to  them  every  thing  is  of  grace,  their 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  71 

vocation,  justification,  and  final  salvation. 
This  is  Christianty,  a  religion,  of  whicli  Christ 
is  the  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  first  and  the  last, 
the  author  and  the  finisher,  not  the  mere  cause 
of  the  possibility  of  pardon. 

Our  discussion  of  the  all-important  question 
respecting  the  nature  of  the  atonement,  has 
run  out  to  so  great  a  length,  that  we  cannot 
claim  much  room  for  the  consideration  of  its 
extent.  Dr.  Beman  writes  on  this  whole  sub- 
ject, very  much  as  a  man  might  be  expected 
to  write  against  Calvinism,  who  got  his  views 
of  that  system,  from  the  furious  harangues  of 
itinerant  Methodist  preachers.  He  quotes  no 
authorities,  establishes  no  assertions,  but  cool- 
ly goes  on  attributing  just  what  opinions  come 
into  his  head  to  those  against  whom  he  writes. 
Had  he  taken  up  any  one  author,  or  class  of 
authors,  cited  from  their  writings  their  own. 
exhibitions  of  doctrine,  and  proceeded  to  ex- 
amine them,  his  readers  would  know  what 
credit  to  give  to  his  statements.  He  however 
has  preferred  to  state  in  general  terms  that 
there  are  but  two  views  of  the  atonement,  his 
own  and  another.  That  other  he  then  most 
grievously  misrepresents.  He  attributes  to 
all  who  reject  his  doctrine,  opinions  which  not 
one  in  a  million  of  them  ever  entertained. 
As  far  as  relates  to  the  nature  of  the  atone- 
ment, these  misrepresentations  have  already 
been  pointed  out.  He  commences  and  con- 
tinues his  discussion  concerning  its  extent  on 
the  same  plan.  He  assumes  that  the  question 
relates  to  the  limitation  in  the  very  nature  of 


7%  REVIEW    OP 

the  work  of  Christ.  *'  If,''  he  says,  "  the 
atonement  is  to  be  considered  as  a  Uteral  pay- 
ment of  a  debt,  or,  in  other  words,  if  it  con- 
sisted in  suffering  the  exact  penalty  of  the  law, 
in  the  room  of  those  Avho  will  be  saved,  it  is 
manifest,  that  it  must  be  limited  in  its  extent. 
In  this  case  it  would  be  a  provision  which 
must  be  regulated  according  to  the  principles 
of  commutative  justice.  If  one  soul  were  to 
be  saved  "  then  Christ  must  suffer  so  much ; 
if  a  thousand  then  a  thousand  times  as  much," 
&c.  p.  145.  The  opposite  doctrine,  which 
he  adopts,  necessarily  leads  to  the  conclu- 
sion "  that  an  atonement  sufficient  for  one,  is 
sufficient  for  all,"  of  course  those  who  reject 
his  view,  are  made  to  hold  an  insufficient 
atonement,  p.  147.  So  Dr.  Cox,  in  his  in- 
troductory chapter,  speaks  of  "  the  limitation 
of  the  nature  "  of  the  atonement,  and  repre- 
sents those  whom  he  opposes  as  holding  that 
it  is  as  "  limited  in  its  nature  as  in  its  appli- 
cation." p.  16, 17.  If  these  gentlemen  would 
take  the  trouble  to  read  a  little  on  this  subject 
they  would  find  that  this  is  all  a  mistake. 
They  are  merely  beating  the  air.  Those  who 
deny  that  Christ  died  for  Judas  as  much  as 
for  Paul,  for  the  non-elect  as  much  as  for  the 
elect,  and  who  maintain  that  he  died  strictly 
and  properly  only  for  his  own  people,  do  not 
hold  that  there  is  any  limitation  in  the  nature 
of  the  atonement.  They  teach  as  fully  as  any 
men,  that  "  an  atonement  sufficient  for  one  is 
sufficient  for  all."  It  is  a  simple  question  re- 
lating to  the  design,  and  not  to  the  nature  of 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  73 

Christ's  work.  That  work  as  far  as  we  know 
or  believe,  would  have  been  the  same,  had 
God  purposed  to  save  but  one  soul,  or  the 
souls  of  all  mankind.  We  hold  that  the 
atonement  as  to  its. value  is  infinite,  and  as  to 
its  nature  as  much  adapted  to  one  man  as  to 
another,  to  all  as  to  one.  The  whole  question 
is,  for  what  purpose  did  he  die  ?  What  was 
the  design  which  God  intended  to  accomplish 
by  his  mission  and  death  ?  That  this  is  the 
true  state  of  the  question,  is  obvious  from  the 
fact,  that  the  Reformed  and  Lutherans  do  not 
differ  at  all  as  to  the  nature  of  Christ's  satisfac- 
tion, though  they  do  differ  as  to  its  design. 
Lutherans,  as  they  deny  the  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion, deny  that  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  had 
special  reference  to  the  elect,  though  they  are 
even  more  strict  than  the  Reformed,  in  their 
views  of  the  vicarious  nature  of  the  atone- 
ment, i.  e.  of  the  imputation  of  our  sins  to 
Christ,  and  of  his  obedience  to  us.  Accord- 
ingly in  all  the  early  defences  of  Calvinists, 
their  arguments  on  the  necessity,  and  on  the 
truth  or  nature  of  the  atonement,  are  directed 
against  Socinians,  and  not  against  either  Ro- 
manists or  Lutherans.  But  when  the  ques- 
tion is  discussed,  "For  whom  did  Christ  die?" 
they  address  their  arguments  against  the  lat- 
ter. Turrettin,  for  example,  in  the  statement 
of  this  question,  says,  "  It  is  not  a  question  con- 
cerning the  value  and  sufficiency  of  Christ's 
death,  whether  it  is  not,  in  itself,'sufficient  for 
the  salvation  of  all  men.  That  is,  on  both 
sides,  admitted.     His  death  being  of  infinite 

G 


74  REVIEW    OF 

value,  would  have  been  most  amply  sufficient 
for  the  redemption  of  all  men,  if  God  had  seen 
fit  to  extend  it  to  all.  Hence  the  common 
distinction  made  by  the  fathers,  and  retained 
by  many  theologians,  Christ  died  sufficient- 
ly  for  all,  efficaciously  for  the  elect,  is  per- 
fectly true  if  understood  of  the  worth  of 
Christ's  death,  but  not  so  accurate  if  under- 
stood of  his  purpose  and  design  in  dying. 
The  question,  therefore,  properly  relates  to 
the  purpose  of  the  Father  in  giving  his  Son, 
and  the  intention  of  the  Son  in  laying  down 
his  life.  Did  the  Father  destine  his  Son  for 
all  and  every  man,  and  did  the  Son  deUver 
himself  to  death  with  the  intention  of  substi- 
tuting himself  in  the  place  of  all  and  every 
one,  in  order  to  make  satisfaction  and  procure 
salvation  for  them  ?  Or,  did  Christ  give  him- 
self for  the  elect  alone,  who  were  given  to  him 
by  the  Father,  and  whose  head  he  was  to  be  ? 
The  heart  of  the  question,  therefore,  comes  to 
this,  not  what  is  /Ae  ;m/wre  or  efficacy  of  the 
death  of  Christ,  but  what  was  the  design  of 
the  Father  in  giving  him  up,  and  the  inten- 
tion of  Christ  in  dying.""^ 

The  simple  statement  of  our  doctrine,  there- 
fore, answers  two-thirds  of  Dr.  Beman's  ob- 
jections against  it.  This  is  not  a  statement 
got  up  for  the  occasion,  but  made  a  century 
and  a  half  before  he  was  born.  There  is 
one  view  in  which  the  question  concerning 
the  extent  of  the  atonement  is  indeed  inti- 

*  Turrettin,  vol.  ii.  p.  49a 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  75 

mately  connected  with  its  nature.  If  any 
man  holds  the  doctrine  that  the  atonement 
was  nothing  more  than  a  symbohcal  expres- 
sion of  a  truth,  and  "merely  opened  the  door 
of  mercy,"  there  is  of  course  an  end  to  all 
question  as  to  its  design.  If  that  be  its  na- 
ture, it  can  have  no  more  reference  to  the 
saved  than  to  the  lost.  And  it  is  probably  in 
order  to  get  rid  of  all  difficulty  as  to  the 
extent  of  the  atonement,  that  many  have 
been  led  to  adopt  the  above  mentioned  most 
unscriptural  and  dangerous  view  of  its  na- 
ture. Bat  if  the  true  doctrine  concerning  the 
nature  of  the  satisfaction  is  retained,  as  it 
was  by  the  Lutherans,  and  even  in  a  great 
measure  by  the  early  Remonstrants,  at  least 
by  Grotius,  the  question  as  to  its  extent, 
resolves  itself  into  a  question  concerning  the 
purposes  of  God.  It  might  seem  as  if  this 
were  an  entirely  useless  question.  The  pur- 
poses of  God  are  not  the  rule  of  our  duty, 
and  whatever  God  may  design  to  do,  we  are 
to  act  in  accordance  with  his  preceptive  will. 
Still  there  is  a  right  and  a  wrong  in  every 
question,  and  what  is  wrong  in  relation  to 
one  point,  must  tend  to  produce  erroneous 
views  with  regard  to  others. 

Dr.  Cox  intimates  with  some  truth  that 
the  difference  of  opinion  on  this  point,  has  its 
origin,  or  at  least  implies  a  difference  of  view 
as  to  the  order  of  the  divine  purposes,  p.  18. 
As  in  fact,  however,  there  is  no  order  of  suc- 
cession in  the  purposes  of  God,  but  simply  in 
our  mode  of  conceiving  them,  all  his  decrees 


76  REVIEW  OF 

being  comprehended  in  one  eternal  purpose, 
any  question  about  the  order  of  those  decrees, 
must  be  a  question  relating  to  our  own 
thoughts.  Those  thoughts,  however,  may  be 
confused,  contradictory,  or  lead  to  conclusions 
in  conflict  with  revealed  facts.  Even  this 
question,  therefore,  is  not  without  its  import- 
ance. If  the  purposes  of  God  are  all  one, 
any  mode  of  conceiving  them  which  prevents 
their  being  reduced  to  unity;  which  supposes 
either  a  change,  or  uncertainty  in  the  divine 
plan,  must  be  erroneous.  As  it  is  involved 
in  our  idea  of  God  as  the  inteUigent  ruler  of 
the  universe,  that  he  had  a  design  in  the 
creation  and  redemption  of  man,  all  classes 
of  theologians  form  some  theory  (if  that  word 
may  be  used)  of  the  plan  adopted  for  the 
accomplishment  of  that  design.  According 
to  one  system,  God  purposed  to  create  man, 
to  permit  the  fall,  to  provide  salvation  for 
all,  to  give  all  sufficient  grace,  to  elect  to  life 
those  who  improve  this  grace.  This  is  the 
scheme  of  the  Remonstrants,  and  of  those 
generally  who  reject  the  doctrines  of  election 
and  efficacious  grace.  According  to  another 
system,  God  purposed  to  create  man,  to  per- 
mit the  fall,  to  provide  for  the  salvation  of 
all,  but  foreseeing  that  none  would  accept  of 
that  salvation,  he  chose  some  to  everlasting 
life,  and  determined  by  his  eifectual  grace,  to 
give  them  faith  and  repentance.  This  is  the 
scheme  proposed  by  Amyraud,  Testard,  Ca- 
mero,  and  other  French  theologians  of  the 
seventeenth  century.     According  to  others, 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  77 

God  purposed  to  create  man,  to  permit  the 
fall,  to  choose  from  the  mass  of  fallen  men 
an  innumerable  multitude  as  vessels  of  mer- 
cy, to  send  his  Son  for  their  redemption,  and 
with  him  to  give  them  every  thing  necessary 
for  their  salvation.  This  was  the  common 
doctrine  of  all  the  Reformed  churches,  from 
which  the  two  former  systems  were  depar- 
tures. The  common  New  School  system, 
adopted  in  this  country,  lies  between  the  Ar- 
minian  and  the  French  scheme,  containing 
more  truth  than  the  former,  and  less  than  the 
latter. 

The  question,  which  of  these  views  of  the 
whole  plan  of  God's  dealings  with  men,  is 
the  most  correct,  must  be  determined,  1.  By 
ascertaining  which  is  most  consistent  with 
itself;  which  best  admits  of  being  reduced  to 
one  simple  purpose.  It  would  not  be  difficult 
to  show  that  the  two  former  include  contra- 
dictions, and  involve  the  ascription  of  conflict- 
ing purposes  to  God.  2.  By  ascertaining 
which  is  most  in  harmony  with  the  admitted 
character  of  God,  as  infinite,  independent,  and 
self-sufficient,  of  whom,  and  through  whom, 
and  to  whom  are  all  things.  3.  By  ascertain- 
ing which  is  most  consistent  with  revealed 
facts.  The  first,  or  Arminian  scheme,  breaks 
down  entirely  by  coming  in  conflict  with  the 
clearly  revealed  truth  of  God's  sovereignty  in 
election,  and  of  conversion  by  his  mighty 
power,  and  not  by  an  influence  common  to 
all  men.  Our  present  business,  however,  is 
with  the  two  latter  schemes,  so  far  as  they  re- 


78  REVIEW    OP 

late  to  the  design  of  Christ's  death.  Was  the 
Son  of  God  sent  into  the  world,  as  Dr.  Beman 
says,  merely  to  make  the  salvation  of  all  men 
possible,  or  actually  to  save  all  whom  God 
had  given  him  ? 

Before  attempting  to  answer  this  question, 
it  is  proper  to  remark  that  Dr.  Beman  and 
those  who  adopt  his  theory,  seem  constantly 
disposed  to  forget  that  Salvation  is  by 
Grace.  If  it  is  of  grace,  then  it  is  a  matter 
of  grace  that  God  provided  salvation  at  all 
for  guilty  men.  If  this  is  not  so,  the  gift  of 
Christ,  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
every  other  gift  requisite  for  our  salvation, 
are  mere  matters  of  justice,  which  it  would 
have  been  unrighteous  to  withhold.  No  man 
can  believe  that,  however,  without  contra- 
dicting every  page  of  the  Bible,  and  the  testi- 
mony of  every  true  Christian.  2.  But  if  God 
was  not  bound  to  save  any,  he  is  at  liberty  to 
save  whom  he  pleases.  If  he  need  not  pro- 
vide salvation  for  any,  there  could  be  no  in- 
justice in  providing  it  for  some  and  not  for 
others.  If  salvation  is  of  grace,  it  is  of  grace 
that  one  and  not  another  is  saved.  And  to 
complain  that  the  mission  of  Christ  was  not 
designed  to  save  all,  or  even  that  it  did  not 
open  the  door  of  mercy  for  all,  if  such  were 
actually  the  case,  would  be  to  complain  of 
the  gratuitous  nature  of  salvation.  And,  3. 
If  salvation  is  by  grace,  then  those  who  are 
saved,  are  freely  called,  justified  and  glorified. 
The  ground  of  their  acceptance,  is  not  to  be 
found  in  them,  but  in  the  good  pleasure  of 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  79 

God.  This  is  the  plain  doctrine  of  the  Bible, 
to  which  we  must  submit ;  and  it  is  so  clearly- 
revealed,  and  so  essential  to  the  very  nature 
of  the  gospel,  that  those  who  are  not  wiUing 
to  be  saved  by  grace,  cannot  be  saved  at  all. 
There  is  therefore  no  preliminary  presump- 
tion against  the  doctrine  that  the  death  of 
Christ  had  not  an  equal  reference  to  all  men, 
but  had  a  special  relation  to  his  own  people. 
The  presumption  is  all  the  other  way.  As 
the  whole  plan  of  salvation  is,  according  to 
the  apostle,  arranged  with  a  view  ^'  to  show 
the  exceeding  riches  of  the  grace  of  God,  by 
his  kindness  towards  us,"  that  view  of  the 
economy  of  redemption,  which  renders  the 
grace  of  God  the  most  conspicuous,  is  the 
most  in  harmony  with  its  grand  design.  What 
God's  actual  purpose  was  in  the  mission  of 
his  Son,  we  can  only  learn  from  his  own 
declarations.  He  reveals  his  designs  to  us, 
partly  by  their  execution,  and  partly  by  the 
annunciation  of  them  in  his  word.  What 
God  does,  is  the  clearest  revelation  of  what 
he  intended  to  do.  Hence  if  the  satisfaction 
of  Christ  actually  saves  all  men,  it  was  cer- 
tainly designed  to  save  all  men;  but  if  it  saves 
only  a  part  of  the  human  race,  it  was  certain- 
ly designed  only  for  a  part.  It  cannot  be 
questioned  that  Christ  came  to  save  men  from 
their  sins,  and  if  we  ask,  whom  he  intended  to 
save  ?  we  can  get  no  better  answer  than  by 
learning  whom  he  does  in  fact  save.  If  the 
end  of  Christ's  mission  was  salvation,  it  is  not 
conceivable* that  he  died  equally  for  all,  un- 


80  REVIEW    OF 

less  he  purposed  to  save  all.  Dr.  Beman, 
however,  denies  that  the  design  of  his  mission 
was  salvation ;  it  was  merely  to  make  salva- 
tion possible. 

In  assuming  this  ground,  he  is  guilty  of 
the  same  one-sided ness,  the  same  contracted 
view,  which  he  exhibits  in  his  doctrine  con- 
cerning the  nature  of  the  atonement.  It  is 
conceded  that  the  work  of  Christ  does  lay 
the  foundation  for  the  offer  of  salvation  to  all 
men.  Dr.  Beman  hence  concludes  that  this 
was  its  only  end;  that  it  merely  opens  the 
way  for  the  general  offer  of  pardon.  His 
theory  is  designed  to  account  for  one  fact, 
and  leaves  all  the  other  revealed  facts  out  of 
view,  and  unexplained.  The  Bible  teaches, 
however,  a  great  deal  more,  in  relation  to 
this  subject,  than  that  one  fact.  It  teaches, 
1.  That  Christ  came  in  execution  of  a  pur- 
pose ;  that  he  suffered  as  Dr.  Beman  ex- 
presses it,  by  covenant,  and  ratified  that 
covenant  with  his  own  blood.  2.  That  his 
mission  was  the  result  and  expression  of  the 
highest  conceivable  love.  3.  That  it  not 
merely  removes  obstacles  out  of  the  way, 
but  actually  secures  the  salvation  of  his  peo- 
ple. 4.  That  it  lays  the  foundation  for  a 
free,  full,  and  unrestrained  offer  of  salvation 
to  all  men.  5.  That  it  renders  just  the  con- 
demnation of  those  who  reject  him  as  their 
Saviour;  that  rejection  being  righteously  the 
special  ground  of  their  condemnation. 

Dr.  Beman's  theory  accords  only  with  the 
last  two  facts  just  mentioned.   It  will  account 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  81 

for  the  general  offer  of  the  gospel,  and  for  the 
condemnation  of  those  who  reject  it.  but  it  is 
inconsistent  with  all  the  other  facts  above 
stated,  which  are  not  less  clearly  revealed, 
and  not  less  important.  It  overlooks  in  the 
first  place,  the  fact  that  Christ  came  into  the 
world  and  accompUshed  the  work  of  redemp- 
tion, in  execution  of  the  covenant  of  grace. 
The  use  of  such  words  as  covenant,  is  often 
convenient,  and  sometimes  unavoidable,  as  a 
concise  method  of  expressing  several  related 
truths.  Wherever  there  is  a  promise  by  one 
person  to  another,  suspended  upon  the  per- 
formance of  a  condition,  there  is  a  covenant. 
As  therefore,  the  Scriptures  expressly  speak 
of  a  promise  made  to  the  Son,  suspended 
upon  the  condition  of  his  incarnation,  obedi- 
ence, and  death,  they  teach  that  there  was  a 
covenant  of  grace.  The  promise  made  to  the 
Redeemer,  was  that  he  should  see  the  travail 
of  his  soul;  that  he  should  have  the  heathen 
for  his  inheritance,  and  the  uttermost  parts  of 
the  earth  for  his  possession;  that  those  whom 
the  Father  had  given  him  should  come  unto 
him;  that  they  should  all  be  taught  of  God, 
receive  the  Spirit,  and  be  raised  up  in  the  last 
day;  that  he  should  be  the  first-born  among 
many  brethren,  and  be  highly  exalted  as  the 
head  of  his  people,  and  far  above  all  princi- 
palities and  powers.  It  is  further  expressly 
taught  that  he  secured  all  these  inestimable 
blessings,  by  his  obedience  unto  death.  Be- 
cause he  thus  humbled  himself,  God  has 
highly  exalted  him ;  on  account  of  the  suffer- 


82  REVIEW  OF 

ing  of  death,  be  was  crowned  with  glory  and 
honour;  because  he  made  his  soul  an  offer- 
ing for  sin,  therefore  God  hath  divided  to  him 
his  portion.  If  these  things  are  so,  if  Christ 
had  the  attainment  of  these  blessings,  which 
involve  the  salvation  of  his  people,  in  view, 
in  coming  into  the  world;  if  the  accomplish- 
ment of  this  work  was  the  object  of  his  mis- 
sion, then  it  is  a  contradiction  in  terms,  to  say 
that,  as  far  as  the  purpose  of  God  and  his 
own  intention  are  concerned,  he  had  not  a 
special  reference  to  his  own  people  and  to 
their  salvation  in  his  death.  Their  salvation 
was  the  reward  promised,  when  it  was  said, 
*'  he  shall  see  his  seed,"  and  it  was  for  that 
recompense  he  died.  Dr.  Beman's  theory 
denies  all  this.  It  assumes  that  his  death, 
his  whole  work,  had  no  reference  to  one  class 
of  men  more  than  to  another,  to  the  saved 
more  than  to  the  lost.  It  simply  made  the 
pardon  of  all  men  possible.  This  is  of  course 
a  denial,  of  what  Dr.  Beman  himself,  in  an 
unguarded  hour,  admitted,  viz.  that  Christ 
suffered  by  covenant.  What  covenant  ?  The 
Scriptures  make  mention  of  no  other  cove- 
nant, in  connexion  with  the  Redeemer's 
death,  than  that  which  included  the  promise 
of  his  people  to  him  as  a  reward,  and  which 
was  ratified  in  his  blood.  Here  then  is  one 
plain,  important,  revealed  fact,  which  Dr. 
Beman's  t heory  overlooks  and  contradicts.  If 
Christ  in  his  death  had  regard  to  the  recom- 
pense of  reward,  and  if  that  reward  included 
the  holiness  and  salvation  of  his  people,  then 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  83 

beyond  contradiction,  his  satisfaction  had  a 
special  reference  to  them. 

In  the  second  place,  his  theory  contradicts 
the  plainly  revealed  fact,  that  the  mission 
and  death  of  Christ  are  the  expression  of 
the  highest  conceivable  love.  According  to 
Dr.  Beman,  they  are  the  expression  of  mere 
general  benevolence.  It  is  admitted  that  love 
was  the  motive  which  led  to  the  gift  of  the 
Son  of  God.  If  that  love  was  general  be- 
nevolence to  all  men,  then  he  died  for  all;  if 
it  was  special  love  to  his  own  people,  then 
he  died  for  them.  That  there  is  snch  special 
love  in  God,  is  involved  in  the  doctrine  of 
election.  According  to  that  doctrine,  God  of 
his  mere  good  pleasure,  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world,  chose  some  to  everlasting  life, 
and  for  infinitely  wise  and  holy  reasons,  left 
others  to  perish  in  their  sins.  To  say  that 
the  infinite  love  which  led  to  the  mission  of 
Christ,  was  a  benevolence  which  had  equal 
regard  to  these  two  classes,  is  to  deny  the 
doctrine  of  election.  That  doctrine,  in  its  very 
nature  supposes  a  difference  in  the  regard 
had  for  the  vessels  of  mercy,  and  the  vessels 
of  wrath;  for  those  in  whom  God  purposed 
to  display  the  riches  of  his  grace,  and  those 
on  whom  he  designed  to  show  his  wrath, 
and  make  his  power  known.  In  teaching 
this  doctrine,  therefore,  the  Scriptuies  teach, 
that  besides  the  benevolence  with  which  God 
regards  all  men,  there  is  a  higher,  special, 
mysterious,  unspeakable  love  which  he  has 
to  his  own  children.     And  to  this  love  they 


84  REVIEW  OP 

refer  the  incarnation  and  death  of  the  Son  of 
God.  The  Scriptures  are  too  expHcit  and 
too  full  on  this  latter  point  to  allow  of  its 
being  questioned.  Greater  love,  said  Christ 
himself,  hath  no  man  than  this,  that  a  man 
lay  down  his  life  for  his  friends.  Paul  prays 
that  the  Ephesians  might  be  strengthened  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  to  be  able  to  comprehend 
what  is  the  breadth,  and  length,  and  depth, 
and  height,  and  to  know  the  love  of  Christ 
which  passes  knowledge.  "Hereby  perceive 
we  the  love  of  God,  because  he  laid  down 
his  life  for  us.  In  this  we  perceive  the  love 
of  God  towards  us,  because  that  God  sent 
his  only  begotten  Son  into  the  world  that  we 
might  live  through  him.  He  that  spared  not 
his  own  Son,  but  delivered  him  up  for  us  all, 
how  shall  he  not  with  him  freely  give  us  all 
things."  In  these  and  in  various  similar 
passages,  it  is  distinctly  asserted  that  the  love 
which  led  to  the  gift  of  Christ,  was  not  gene- 
ral benevolence,  consistent  with  the  eternal 
reprobation  of  its  objects,  but  the  highest 
conceivable  love,  that  would  spare  nothing 
to  secure  the  salvation  of  those  on  whom  it 
rested. 

Again,  it  is,  with  equal  explicitness  and  fre- 
quency, asserted,  that  love  to  his  people  was 
the  motive  of  the  Son  of  God,  in  laying  down 
his  life.  ^"For  their  sakes,"  said  the  Re- 
deemer, "I  sanctify  myself"  "I  am  the 
good  shepherd,  the  good'  shepherd  giveth  his 
life  for  his  sheep."  "  I  lay  down  my  life  for 
my  sheep."     *'  Christ  loved  the  Church,  and 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  85 

gave  himself  for  it."  Do  not  these  passages 
assert  that  love  for  his  church,  his  friends, 
his  sheep,  was  the  motive  of  Christ  in  dying? 
When  the  Scriptures  divide  men  into  classes, 
the  sheep  and  the  goats,  the  church  and  those 
who  are  not  the  church,  and  say  that  love  to 
his  sheep,  love  to  his  church,  led  the  Saviour 
to  lay  down  his  life,  they  expressly  assert 
that  it  was  a  peculiar  love  for  them,  and  not 
a  general  benevolence  including  them  and  all 
others  alike,  that  was  the  motive  of  Christ  in 
laying  down  his  life.  Let  it  be  remembered 
that  this  whole  question  relates,  not  to  the 
incidental  effects  of  Christ's  death,  but  to  his 
intention  in  dying.  The  passages  above 
quoted,  and  the  Scriptures  generally,  do  then 
teach  that  besides  his  general  benevolence 
for  men,  God  has  a  special  love  for  his  own 
people,  and  that  that  special  love,  for  his 
own,  for  his  friends,  for  his  sheep,  led  the 
Saviour  to  give  himself  up  to  death.  If  this 
is  so,  it  overturns  Dr.  Beman's  theory,  which 
is  in  direct  conflict  with  this  plain  and  pre- 
cious truth.  It  is  not  that  benevolence  which 
consists  with  eternal  reprobation,  i.  e.  with 
the  eternal  purpose  to  leave  men  to  suffer 
the  just  recompense  of  their  sins,  that  led  the 
Father  to  give  up  the  Son,  and  the  Son  to 
assume  our  nature  and  die  upon  the  cross. 
Those  who  admit  this,  admit  all  the  limita- 
tion of  the  atonement  for  which  we  contend; 
a  limitation  not  as  to  its  nature  or  value,  but 
as  to  the  purpose  of  God  and  intention  of 
Christ.    Besides,  does  it  not  involve  a  con- 


86  REVIEW  OF 

tradiction,  to  say  that  love  to  those  whom 
God  purposed,  for  wise  reasons,  not  to  save, 
was  his  motive  in  providing  salvation  ?  Our 
Saviour  teaches  that  the  knowledge  of  the 
gospel  aggravates  the  guilt  and  consequently 
the  misery  of  those  who  reject  it ;  then  cer- 
tainly, love  to  them  was  not  the  motive 
which  led  either  to  the  adoption  or  the  pro- 
clamation of  the  scheme  of  redemption.  The 
fact  is,  this  doctrine  that  Christ  died  as  much 
for  Judas  as  for  Paul,  is  inconsistent  with  the 
doctrine  of  election;  and  the  two  have  never 
for  any  length  of  time  been  held  together. 
Those  theologians  in  the  church  of  Rome, 
who  remained  faithful  to  the  doctrine  of  elec- 
tion, also  held  that  the  death  of  Christ  had 
special  reference  to  his  own  people.  The 
Lutherans,  when  they  rejected  the  one  doc- 
trine, rejected  also  the  other.  So  did  the 
Arminians.  A  few  French  divines  endea- 
voured, by  reversing  the  natural  order  of  the 
decrees,  for  a  time  to  unite  the  two ;  but  the 
attempt  failed.  Both  doctrines  were  soon 
rejected.  The  sovereignty  of  God,  election, 
special  love  as  the  motive  of  redemption^  and 
consequently  a  special  reference  to  the  elect, 
in  the  death  of  Christ,  are  joined  together  in 
the  Scriptures,  and  they  cannot  long  be  sepa- 
rated in  the  faith  of  God's  people. 

Another  revealed  fact  which  Dr.  Beman's 
theory  overlooks  and  contradicts,  is  that 
Christ's  death,  not  only  removes  obstacles  out 
of  the  way  of  the  exercise  of  mercy,  but  ac- 
tually secures  the  salvation  of  his  people.    It 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  87 

has  been  repeatedly  shown  that  Dr.  Beman 
constantly  asserts  that  the  only  effect  of  the 
atonement  is  to  bring  the  sinner  within  the 
reach  of  mercy,  it  merely  makes  pardon  pos- 
sible. This  is  the  only  effect  claimed  for  it, 
and  all  that  can  be  attributed  to  it  on  his 
theory.  This  however  is  in  direct  conflict 
with  the  Scriptures,  because  they  teach  that 
the  death  of  Christ  renders  the  salvation  of 
his  own  people  certain.  This  follows  from 
what  has  already  been  said.  If  Christ  suffer- 
ed by  covenant;  if  that  covenant  promised  to 
him  his  people  as  his  reward  and  inheritance, 
on  condition  of  his  obedience  and  death,  then 
assuredly  when  he  performed  that  condition, 
the  salvation  of  all  whom  the  Father  had 
given  to  him,  was  rendered  absolutely  certain. 
Hence,  it  is  said,  that  he  purchased  his  church, 
that  is,  acquired  a  right  to  it.  He  gave  him- 
self for  his  church,  that  he  might  purify  and 
cleanse  it.  He  came  into  the  world  to  save 
his  people  from  their  sins.  Pie  gave  himself 
for  our  sins  that  he  might  redeem  us  from 
this  present  evil  world ;  or,  as  elsewhere  said, 
to  purify  a  pecuhar  people  unto  himself. 
These  and  similar  declarations  teach  that  the 
design  of  Christ's  death,  was  actually  to  save 
his  people.  They  are,  therefore,  so  many 
direct  contradictions  of  the  doctrine,  that  he 
merely  opened  the  door  of  mercy.  To  make 
salvation  possible,  is  not  to  save ;  to  make 
holiness  possible,  is  not  to  purify;  to  open  the 
door,  is  not  to  bring  us  near  to  God. 

The  Scriptures  also  ascribe  effects  to  the 


88  REVIEW   OP 

death  of  Christ,  irreconcilable  with  the  idea 
that  it  is  a  mere  governmental  display.  We 
are  justified  by  his  blood,  we  thereby  obtain 
remission  of  sins,  we  have  peace  with  God, 
we  are  delivered  from  the  wrath  to  come,  and 
obtain  eternal  redemption.  It  is  contrary  to 
all  scriptural  usage,  to  bring  down  all  these 
and  similar  declarations,  to  mean  nothing 
more  than  that  these  blessings  are  rendered 
attainable  by  the  work  of  Christ.  This  is  not 
what  the  words  mean.  To  say  that  we  are 
justified,  or  reconciled,  or  cleansed,  is  not  to 
say  that  the  obstacles  in  the  way  of  obtaining 
the  blessings  mentioned,  are  merely  removed. 
It  is  to  say  that  his  blood  secures  those  bless- 
ings ;  and  secures  them  in  the  time  and  way 
that  God  has  appointed.  No  instance  can  be 
produced  in  which  a  sacrifice,  offered  and  ac- 
cepted, is  said  to  propitiate  God,  and  be  the 
ground  of  pardon,  when  nothing  more  is 
meant  than  that  the  sacrifice  renders  pardon 
possible.  The  meaning  uniformly  is,  that  it 
secures  and  renders  it  certain.  The  very  ac- 
ceptance of  it,  is  the  established  way  of  pro- 
mising forgiveness  to  those  in  whose  behalf 
the  sacrifice  was  offered.  Dr.  Beman's  theo- 
ry, therefore,  in  attributing  so  little  to  the 
death  of  Christ,  contradicts  the  established 
meaning  of  scriptural  phrases;  and  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  clearly  revealed  fact  that  his 
death  makes  salvation  not  only  possible,  but 
certain. 

It  is  further  revealed  that  there  is  an  inti- 
mate connexion  between  the  death  of  Christ 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  89 

and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Spirit 
was  promised  to  Christ,  to  be  given  to  his 
people.  The  apostle  Peter  says,  He  having 
received  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  hath 
shed  forth  this,  which  ye  both  see  and  hear. 
Acts  ii.  33.  In  Tit.  iii.  5,  6,  God  is  said  to 
shed  on  us  abundantly  the  Holy  Ghost, 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  All  spiritual 
blessings  are  said  to  be  given  to  us  in  Christ 
Jesus,  Ep.  i.  3 ;  that  is,  on  account  of  our 
union  with  him,  a  union  eternal  in  the  pur- 
pose of  God,  and  actual  when  we  believe. 
This  union  existing  in  the  divine  purpose, 
this  covenant  union,  is  represented  as  the 
ground  of  the  gift  of  regeneration.  In  Ep.  ii. 
5,  6,  we  are  said  to  be  quickened  with  Christ, 
to  be  raised  up  in  him.  This  can  only  mean 
that  there  is  a  union  between  Christ  and  his 
people,  which  secures  to  them  that  influence 
by  which  they  are  raised  from  spiritual  death. 
If  so,  then  in  the  convenant  to  ratify  which 
Christ  died,  it  was  promised  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  should  be  given  to  his  people,  and  to 
secure  that  promise  was  one  design  of  his 
death.  And  consequently  all  for  whom  he 
died  must  receive  that  Spirit,  whose  influ- 
ences were  secured  by  his  death.  He  is, 
therefore,  said  to  have  redeemed  us  from  the 
curse  of  the  law,  that  we  might  receive  the 
promise  of  the  Spirit,  Gal.  iii.  13,  14.  It  ob- 
viously contradicts  this  important  truth,  to 
teach  that  Christ's  death  had  as  much  refer- 
ence to  one  man  as  another,  or  that  it  merely 
renders  mercy  possible.     If  Christ  suffered  by 


90  REVIEW    OF 

covenant,  and  if  that  covenant  included  the 
promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  teach,  renew, 
and  sanctify  his  people,  then  it  cannot  be  de- 
nied that  those  thus  taught,  renewed  and 
sanctified  are  those  for  whom  he  died. 

Dr.  Beman's  theory,  therefore,  which  de- 
nies that  the  death  of  Christ  had  a  special  re- 
ference to  his  own  people,  is  inconsistent  with 
the  plainly  revealed  facts,  1.  That  he  died 
in  execution  of  a  covenant  in  which  his  peo- 
ple were  promised  to  him  as  his  reward,  to 
secure  which  reward  is  declared  to  be  his 
specific  and  immediate  design  in  laying  down 
his  life.  2.  That  the  motive  which  led  to  the 
gift  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Son  in  dying,  was 
not  general  benevolence,  but  the  highest  con- 
ceivable love,  love  for  his  sheep  and  for 
his  friends.  3.  That  the  design  of  his  death 
was  not  simply  to  remove  obstacles  out  of  the 
way  of  mercy,  but  actually  to  secure  the  sal- 
vation of  those  given  to  him  by  the  Father ; 
and  that  it  does  in  fact  secure  for  them  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  consequently 
justification  and  eternal  life.  In  other  words, 
God  having  out  of  his  mere  good  pleasure, 
elected  some  to  everlasting  life,  did  enter  mto 
a  covenant  of  grace,  to  deliver  them  out  of 
the  estate  of  sin  and  misery,  and  to  bring 
them  into  an  estate  of  salvation,  by  a  Re- 
deemer. The  only  Redeemer  of  God's  elect 
is  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  being  the  eter- 
nal Son  of  God,  became  man,  was  made  un- 
der the  law,  satisfied,  by  his  obedience  and 
death,  all  its  demands,  and  thus  fulfilled  the 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  91 

conditions  of  that  covenant  on  which  the  sal- 
vation of  his  people  was  suspended,  and 
thereby  acquired  a  right  to  them  as  his  stipu- 
lated reward.  Such  was  the  specific  design 
and  certain  effect  of  his  death.  This  is  the 
plain  doctrine  of  our  standards,  and  as  we 
fully  believe,  of  the  word  of  God. 

It  will  however,  doubtless  be  asked,  admit- 
ting that  our  doctrine  of  the  atonement  does 
accord  with  the  facts  above  mentioned,  can 
it  be  reconciled  with  the  no  less  certain  facts 
that  the  gospel  is  to  be  freely  offered  to  all 
men,  and  that  those  who  reject  it,  are  justly 
condemned  for  their  unbelief?  If  it  cannot, 
it  must  be  defective.  On  this  score,  however, 
we  feel  no  difficulty. 

Our  doctrine  is,  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
in  order  to  secure  the  salvation  of  his  people, 
and  with  a  specific  view  to  that  end,  fulfilled 
the  conduions  of  the  law  or  covenant  under 
which  they,  and  all  mankind  were  placed. 
Those  conditions  were,  perfect  obedience, 
and  satisfaction  to  divine  justice,  by  bearing 
the  penalty  threatened  against  sin.  Christ's 
righteousness,  therefore,  consists  in  his  obe- 
dience and  death.  That  righteousness  is 
precisely  what  the  law  demands  of  every 
sinner,  in  order  to  his  justification  before 
God.  It  is,  therefore,  in  its  nature,  adapted 
to  all  sinners  who  are  under  that  law.  Its 
nature  is  not  altered  by  the  fact  that  it  was 
wrought  out  for  a  portion  only  of  such 
sinners,  or  that  it  is  secured  to  them  by  the 
covenant  between  the  Father  and  the  Son. 


92  REVIEW   OP 

What  is  necessary  for  the  salvation  of  one 
man,  is  necessary  for  the  salvation  of  another, 
and  of  all.  The  righteousness  of  Christ, 
therefore,  consisting  in  the  obedience  and 
death  demanded  by  the  law  under  which  all 
men  are  placed,  is  adapted  to  all  men.  It  is 
also  of  infinite  value,  being  the  righteousness 
of  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  and  therefore  suf- 
ficient for  all.  On  these  two  grounds,  its 
adaptation  to  all  and  its  sufficiency  for  all, 
rests  the  offer  made  in  the  gospel  to  all.  With 
this  its  design  has  nothing  to  do  ;  who  are  to 
be  saved  by  it  we  do  not  know.  It  is  of  such 
a  nature  and  value,  that  w^hosoever  accepts 
of  it,  shall  be  saved.  If  one  of  the  non-elect 
should  believe  (though  the  hypothesis  is  on 
various  accounts  unreasonable)  to  him  that 
righteousness  would  be  imputed  to  his  salva- 
tion. And  if  one  of  the  elect  should  not  be- 
lieve, or  having  believed,  should  apostatize, 
he  would  certainly  perish.  These  supposi- 
tions, are  made,  simply  to  show  that  accord- 
ing to  our  doctrine,  the  reason  why  any  man 
perishes,  is  not  that  there  is  no  righteousness 
provided  suitable  and  adequate  to  his  case,  or 
that  it  is  not  freely  offered  to  all  that  hear  the 
gospel,  but  simply  because  he  wilfully  rejects 
the  proffered  salvation.  Our  doctrine,  there- 
fore, provides  for  the  universal  offer  of  the 
gospel  and  for  the  righteous  condemnation  of 
mibelievers,  as  thoroughly  as  Dr.  Beman's. 
It  opens  the  door  for  mercy,  as  far  as  legal 
obstructions  are  concerned,  as  fully  as  his; 
while  it  meets  all  the  other  revealed  facts  of 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  93 

the  case.  It  is  not  a  theory  for  one  fact.  It 
includes  them  all ;  the  fact  that  Christ  died  by 
covenant  for  his  own  people ;  that  love  for 
his  own  sheep  led  him  to  lay  down  his  life  ; 
that  his  death  renders  their  salvation  absolute- 
ly certain  ;  that  it  opens  the  way  for  the  offer 
of  salvation  to  all  men,  and  shows  the  justice 
of  the  condemnation  of  unbelief.     No  man 

PERISHES  FOR  THE  WANT  OP  AN  ATONEMENT, 

is  the  doctrine  of  the  Synod  of  Dort ;  it  is  also 
our  doctrine. 

Dr.  Cox  is  pleased  to  call  us  "  restriction- 
ists."  A  most  inappropriate  designation. 
There  is  more  saving  truth  in  the  parings  of 
our  doctrine,  than  in  his  whole  theory.  Our 
doctrine  contains  all  the  modicum  of  truth 
there  is  in  his,  and  it  contains  unspeakably 
more.  His  own  theory  is  the  most  restricted, 
jejune,  meagre,  and  lifeless,  that  has  ever  been 
propounded.  It  provides  for  but  one  fact ; 
it  teaches  a  possible  salvation,  while  it  leaves 
out  the  very  soul  of  the  doctrine.  It  vitiates 
the  essential  nature  of  the  atonement,  makes 
it  a  mere  governmental  display,  a  symbolical 
method  of  instruction,  in  order  to  do  what 
was  better  done  without  any  such  corruption. 
While  we  teach  that  Christ,  by  really  obey- 
ing the  law,  and  really  bearing  its  penalty,  in 
the  place  of  his  people,  and  according  to  the 
stipulations  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  secured 
the  salvation  of  all  w^hom  the  Father  had 
given  him;  and  at  the  same  time  throws 
open  the  door  of  mercy  to  all  who  choose  to 
enter  it.    We  retain  the  life-giving  doctrine 


94  REVIEW    OF 

of  Christ's  unioQ  with  his  own  people,  his 
obeying  and  dying  in  their  stead,  of  his  bear- 
ing our  sins,  and  of  our  becoming  the  right- 
eousness of  God  in  him  ;  of  the  necessity  of 
entire  self-renunciation  and  of  simple  reUance 
on  his  righteousness,  on  the  indweUing  of  his 
Spirit,  and  on  his  strength  for  our  salvation  ; 
while  we  impose  no  restriction  on  the  glori- 
ous gospel  of  the  grace  of  God. 

Long  as  this  discussion  has  become,  we 
have  touched  only  what  appeared  to  us,  the 
most  important  points  of  the  controversy, 
and  must  leave  others  unnoticed.  We  trust 
we  have  said  enough,  to  show  that  there  is 
no  necessity  for  surrendering  the  common 
faith  of  Christendom,  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
atonement,  for  the  miserable  theory  pro- 
pounded by  Dr.  Beman.  We  cannot  close 
this  article  without  a  single  remark  concern- 
ing his  book  itself.  It  is  a  small  volume; 
sold  at  a  moderate  price,  and  intended  for 
general  circulation.  It  is  written  in  a  calm 
and  confident  spirit,  but  without  force,  dis- 
crimination, or  learning.  It  is  the  very  book 
to  do  harm.  It  presents  its  readers  the 
choice  between  two  doctrines,  the  one  no 
man  can  adopt,  the  other  is  hardly  worth 
accepting.  So  far  as  this  book  is  concerned, 
the  atonement  must  be  rejected  either  as  in- 
credible or  as  worthless.  He  represents  the 
one  doctrine,  as  teaching  that  Christ  became 
personally  and  morally  a  sinner,  that  he  suf- 
fered just  what  in  kind  and  degree,  all  his 
people  throughout  eternity,  would  have  en- 


BEMAN  ON  THE  ATONEMENT.  95 

dured,  and  that  they  by  his  righteousness  be- 
came morally  innocent.  This  view  of  the 
atonement,  no  man  can  beUeve  and  be  a 
Christian.  His  own  doctrine  makes  the 
atonement  a  mere  symbolical  method  of  in- 
struction, and  reduces  the  whole  work  of 
Christ  in  this  matter,  to  making  pardon  pos- 
sible. This  again  is  a  doctrine,  which  we 
see  not  how  any  man  can  practically  believe, 
and  be  a  Christian.  The  book  in  itself  is  of 
little  consequence.  But  from  its  gross  and 
yet  confident  misrepresentation  of  the  truth, 
it  has  more  of  the  power  due  to  falsehood, 
than  any  book  of  the  kind  we  know.  As  to 
the  author  of  the  book,  we  have  no  disposi- 
tion to  sit  in  judgment  on  his  motives.  He 
has  most  grievously  misrepresented  the  truth, 
whether  ignorantly  or  otherwise,  it  is  not  for 
us  to  say. 


THE    END. 


DATE  DUE 

^mmmmmm 

* 

.^,5|^^*^»«*^ 

^^'SiS* 

mmmttm^^dti^ 

^m^i>am«^m^ 

^^aiwa^sis^i 

GAYLORD 

PRINTED1NU.S.A. 

i 


